See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233519938

New stability field tests for construction excavators

Article in Engineering Construction & Architectural Management · July 2009

DOI: 10.1108/09699980910970833

CITATIONS READS
10 2,884

2 authors, including:

David J. Edwards
Birmingham City University
543 PUBLICATIONS 12,700 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David J. Edwards on 06 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management
New stability field tests for construction excavators
David J. Edwards, Gary D. Holt,
Article information:
To cite this document:
David J. Edwards, Gary D. Holt, (2009) "New stability field tests for construction excavators",
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 16 Issue: 4, pp.337-352, https://
doi.org/10.1108/09699980910970833
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980910970833
Downloaded on: 06 March 2018, At: 10:36 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 29 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 702 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2010),"Case study analysis of construction excavator H&S overturn incidents", Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 17 Iss 5 pp. 493-511 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/09699981011074583">https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981011074583</a>
(2008),"Health and safety issues relating to construction excavators and their attachments",
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 15 Iss 4 pp. 321-335 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/09699980810886838">https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980810886838</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm

Stability field
New stability field tests for tests
construction excavators
David J. Edwards and Gary D. Holt
Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK 337
Received November 2008
Abstract Revised March 2009
Purpose – The extensive use of mini-excavators in construction presents a significant health and Accepted March 2009
safety risk from their tendency to become unstable, or in the extreme to roll-over, under certain
working conditions. No standard exists to specifically assess excavator stability, so the purpose of this
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

paper is to document the development and trial of a series of practical field tests designed to achieve
this.
Design/methodology/approach – Tests were designed in collaboration with a group of plant
experts and competent operators. The tests were subsequently trialled by applying them to four
mini-excavators, the aim being to see if these plant items could be reliably assessed in terms of their
stability characteristics. Results of the study were presented to H&S experts for comment.
Findings – The tests were able to assess mini-excavator stability. For each machine, five “stability
criteria” were scored thereby producing an overall score, by which mini-excavator stability could be
conveniently represented.
Research implications – No previous field test research has been identified in this area. The results
produced here may go some way towards developing an international standard for on-site stability
tests.
Practical implications – The tests are easy to apply at the work site so long as performed by
competent persons under appropriately risk-assessed and risk controlled conditions; and if
disseminated to industry, could act as a means of standardising mini-excavator stability tests until
such time an International Standard becomes available.
Originality/value – Research in this area is entirely novel.
Keywords Construction equipment, Health and safety, Excavating
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Given the hazardous nature of construction (Griffith and Howarth, 2001), the subject of
health and safety (H&S) is well entrenched within the construction management
literature (see Darshi De Saram and Tang, 2005; Teo et al., 2005). Because construction
relies heavily on mechanisation (Edwards et al., 2003, Ch. 1), a pertinent aspect of that
subject for all who execute building and civil engineering works is plant and
equipment safety. In this context “plant” is generally meant to include self-propelled
off-highway machines (such as excavators and dumpers); while the term “equipment”
often generically classifies hand-held automated tools such as drills, sanders, and
breakers (Edwards and Holt, 2006). This study is concerned with the former
classification and in particular, focuses on mini-excavators. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management
Vol. 16 No. 4, 2009
Acknowledgement is gratefully extended to those plant manufacturers, hirers, professionals, and pp. 337-352
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
operators who so enthusiastically participated in this study, along with those within HSE, who 0969-9988
furnished constructive feedback on the study outcomes. DOI 10.1108/09699980910970833
 ECAM 1.1. Mini-excavators and their use in construction
16,4 Mini-excavators usually take the form of a tracked vehicle being less than 7 Tonnes in
weight[1] that can swing about its axis through 3600 (generally termed “slewing”);
being fitted with a hydraulically operated arm to which can be attached various types
of tool. The tracks are often made of rubber (so as not to damage pavements during
travel), and the tool most often used is an excavating bucket, although other options
338 include hydraulic breakers and various types of dedicated lifting attachment (Edwards
and Holt, 2008).
The mini-excavator is used extensively for all kinds of construction work, including:
digging foundations; installing drainage; working within tight spaces (such as
caissons and within buildings); and for emergency utility works. Reasons for its
popularity include its small size, light weight, transportability, relatively low capital
cost, simplicity in operation, and general versatility (Edwards and Holt, 2008.).
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

Accordingly, mini-excavator sales have increased significantly over the last 15 years
and as Table I demonstrates, the trend of sales for total units sold in the UK and Ireland
equates to an average annual growth of 21 per cent year-on-year; representing an
increase from 1,300 excavators sold in 1992 to almost 12,000 in 2005. It follows
therefore, that any health and safety risks associated with this kind of plant are likely
to affect all who operate, own, or otherwise manage mini-excavators throughout the
construction sector.

1.2. Risks from mini-excavator use

The range of H&S risks from construction plant are many and include: collisions
between plant and pedestrians; falls from a height; being struck by objects falling from
plant; and communication problems between operators and others (Hughes and Ferret,
2007, p. 178). One specific risk concerns machine instability, which can cause an item of
plant to tip, or roll-over when being used (Hughes and Ferret, 2007; HSE, 2006a; 2008a).
Reasons for such turnover are varied, but include weak ground, poor operator
competence, (and resultantly) operator error, shape and weight of the load being
handled by an excavator, position of the excavator with respect to ground topology,

Year Total market (units sold) Percentage change on previous year

1992 1,322
1993 2,138 61.72
1994 4,028 88.40
1995 3,620 2 10.13
1996 2,801 2 22.62
1997 3,460 23.53
1998 4,046 16.94
1999 5,619 38.88
2000 6,735 19.86
2001 7,332 8.86
2002 8,629 17.69
2003 10,198 18.18
2004 11,390 11.69
Table I. 2005 11,992 5.29
Mini-excavator sales UK
and Ireland 1992-2005 Source: Authors’ personal correspondence with plant manufacturer’s economist
 orientation of the tracks during slewing operations, and the effects of inertia of the Stability field
machine while at work (being particularly related to machine power and slew speed). tests
Working on steep slopes is especially hazardous for plant (HSE, 2008b).
In addition to structural damage, roll-over of plant can endanger the operator and/or
anyone else in the machine’s vicinity; which explains why roll-overs account for almost
one fifth of all deaths related to workplace transport (HSE, 2005, p. 77). Some cases in
point highlight these risks. For example, of the 60 tonne mobile crane that overturned 339
after being used on soft ground (HSE, 2008b); the operator that drowned after
becoming trapped in water when his overturned excavator fell onto the cab door
(WorkSafe, 2008); and the operator who had to be freed from his excavator when it
rolled over due to operator error (Contract Journal, 2008).
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

1.3. Research aim and objectives

As with any robust H&S regime (see St John Holt, 2005, p. 5; HSE, 2006b), all who
manage or work with mini-excavators need to identify (assess) the risks they present
and subsequently mitigate or eliminate them. In addressing this ambition, it would
make sense to assess mini-excavators for their potential to become unstable – taking
into account the machine’s proposed work environment – and select the most
appropriate model for that environment. Prudent mini-excavator procurement choices
would effectively be a way of mitigating risk “at source”. This study is concerned with
assessing mini-excavator stability for reasons such as this and hence, its principal aim
can be stated as: to design and trial stability field tests, which are able to characterise
the stability of mini-excavators when they are being exposed to work.
To do this, field tests were developed based on a focus meeting with expert plant
managers and competent mini-excavator operators. These tests were then applied to a
sample of four different mini-excavator models while being used in working situations.
Objectives here included to observe the ability of the tests to:
.
subjectively assess mini-excavator stability; and
.
“classify” mini-excavators in this respect.

The emphasis on what is reported in this paper is the veracity of the tests themselves;
not the stability characteristics of any particular mini-excavator(s). This is because,
given that the tests proved appropriate for stability assessment, then mini-excavator
owners and operators can apply them in their own working environments, as means to
making their own judgements (but see “Limitations of the study” later).

2. Problems of excavator instability

While the problems of excavator (in-) stability are known about, there is no “standard”
method by which a specific machine (e.g. manufacturer, model, weight, and
configuration) can be assessed and/or classified in this respect in terms of its stability
while undertaking work. Standards do exist relating to excavator safety generally (BSI,
2006) and to roll-over (BSI, 2000) and tip-over protection structures (BSI, 2001), but
these do not relate to stability testing. Although, excavator stability is addressed to
some extent in terms of “lifting capacity” relating to use of buckets and shovels,
logging applications, object handling, and with respect to walking excavators, in BS
6912-9:1992 (BSI, 1992). Stability test standards are available for certain other types of
plant such as industrial trucks (BSI, 1996, 1998).
 ECAM 2.1. Tilt tests
16,4 At present, mini-excavator manufacturers tend to test the stability of their plant using
what is termed a “tilt-test” – to measure the “natural angle” at which a machine will
begin to turnover. Machines are placed on the tilt table and secured to it using anchor
blots, slings and chains such that the machine can begin to tilt but not roll-over (this is
to avoid damage and for safety reasons). The surface of the table is then inclined
340 hydraulically until such time as the securing mechanism (e.g. chain) begins to tighten.
At this point the machine is said to have tilted and the angle of inclination at that point
is recorded.
While tilt-test data provide some insight to plant stability, the test has several
limitations. These include:
.
the test can be applied (and hence be interpreted) differently between
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

manufacturers (e.g. some test with excavator buckets fitted, others do not);
.
the results can vary significantly depending upon machine configuration during
testing (e.g. excavator direction upon the tilt table, configuration of excavator
arm and dozer blade); and
.
the test is static so it bears little relationship to the dynamics of a machine at
work.
The latter point is particularly important because while working:
(1) an excavator’s centre of gravity is dynamic; and
(2) the machine generates inertia and turning moments.

These two things significantly impact stability.

2.2. The case for field tests
Some aspects of off-highway plant stability have previously been addressed from an
“academic” standpoint using, for example, computer simulation and modelling.
Scarlett et al. (2006) for instance, used computer-based dynamic simulation modelling
of lateral roll-over behaviour; while Webb (2004) applied mathematical models to
all-terrain vehicle stability. (See also Seward et al. (2000), Abo-Shanab and Sepehril
(2005a, b), and Han et al. (2008)). Nonetheless, given the practical nature of the
mini-excavator stability problem within construction and the stated limitations of the
tilt-test, it was decided for this study to develop a range of field tests.
Field tests were chosen because they require little technical knowledge to apply at
the work site and therefore – if successful in achieving their aim – would stand better
chance of acceptance and use by industry than would a more academic approach. Field
tests were developed in partnership with a sample of experienced plant managers and
operators, these being “experts” at using and managing mini-excavators. The tests
were then applied in real conditions to determine their applicability at assessing
mini-excavator stability characteristics.

2.3. Factors beyond the scope of standard field tests

The mini-excavator’s versatility, ironically, contributes to the risks of its instability.
Versatility means mini-excavators are used for many other work tasks beyond
excavating or moving excavated spoil. For instance, they might be called on to push,
pull, tow or otherwise move heavy objects; and very often will be used as an item of
 lifting equipment to move other plant or raw materials. A particular case in point is Stability field
lifting and placing drainage pipes and ancillary components, when excavating/installing tests
drainage systems. These “other” work tasks will all place additional forces on the
machine, and lifting in particular, will raise and/or change the centre of gravity while
also making machine stability much more unpredictable. The situation is exacerbated,
where the machine is used as a crane in this way while simultaneously working on
sloping ground. 341
For reasons such as these, it would be difficult to model machine stability dynamics
when performing these “other” types of tasks and so field tests are restricted in this
context. To take account of this in the future, additional tests would be required to
investigate this unpredictable context, but, would need performing in a much stricter
controlled environment with greater safety controls, because increased probability of
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

machine instability would result from implementing them.

3. Method
Along with the researchers, a group of six industry experts were assembled to design
the tests. This industry-led group comprised six senior plant managers representing
three major plant companies and three mini-excavator manufacturers. The aim of the
tests was established as being to: put the excavators in real work conditions and induce
instability for subjective analysis. This in turn was agreed would in the main be a
function of slewing the excavator at speed with the arm extended fully under various
conditions. It was further decided to use the largest bucket available for each machine
and to undertake testing with this bucket fully charged, again to maximise induced
instability. Detailed discussion led the group to finally settle on eight tests in all, and
these are described in a little more detail as follows.

3.1. Description of Test 1

For Test 1, the excavator was located in a “start position” with the bucket positioned in
front of the dozer blade. The boom and dipper was placed at full reach and the grading
bucket fitted to the machine was filled to maximum capacity. The dozer blade was
placed firmly on the ground. The bucket was then lifted to a height 1m off the ground
(as measured to its underside). This configuration is shown graphically in Figure 1;
which is also annotated to identify the various excavator components referred to in this
test description.
With the bucket of the machine maintained at this 1m height, it was then “slewed” –
with the machine at full revs – through 180 degrees, such that the bucket finished in a
position facing the “rear” of the machine once this slewing action was complete. (Refer
to Figure 2). This particular test was repeated three times, where an iteration of it
involved one slew of 180 degrees (from A to B on Figure 2) and then back 180 degrees
(from B to A) to the original position.

3.2. Description of Test 2

Test 2 comprised exactly the same procedure as described for Test 1, but in this
instance, the bucket was raised to (and slewed at) a level two metres above ground
level (measured to its underside).
 ECAM
16,4

342
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

Figure 1.
Test 1 start configuration

3.3. Description of Tests 3 and 4

Tests 3 and 4 repeated Tests 1 and 2 respectively, but this time, the dozer blade was
lifted off the ground during the test, to introduce an extra element of instability to the
machine. See Figure 3.

3.4. Description of Test 5

Test 5 repeated the slewing action and bucket heights described in tests 1 through 4;
but with the excavator sitting on an uneven plane (simulating uneven ground). This
was achieved by placing a 100 mm £ 100 mm wooden block under the front of the
track (Figure 4). The dozer blade remained raised as in tests 3 and 4.

3.5. Description of Test 6

Test 6 simulated “general operation” by again using the machine start position as
stated in Test 5, but this time the bucket was in front of the dozer blade at ground level
from where it was slewed to 90 degrees whilst simultaneously being raised to a height
of 1m. At this point, the slew continued through (from 90) to 180 degrees, while the
bucket was lowered back to ground level. This procedure is shown graphically by a
sequence of events (a), (b) and (c) in Figure 5.

3.6. Description of Test 7

Test 7 placed the excavator in the most unstable working conditions of all the tests.
The bucket started 1m off the ground facing the side of the tracks. The excavator then
slewed anticlockwise (across the front of the machine) to the opposite side of the tracks.
As with Test 5, the dozer blade was raised off the ground, the bucket was filled to
maximum capacity and the 100 mm £ 100 mm timber block was be placed under the
front of the track. Figure 6 shows Test 7 start position, while Figure 7 shows the test in
plan view.
 Stability field
tests

343
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

Figure 2.
Plan view of Test 1
showing 1800 slewing
angle

3.7. Description of Test 8

In this final test, the operator subjectively considered the machine’s overall stability
during “normal” work operations. To do this, the operator:
.
tracked up and down a 30 degree inclined ramp;
.
tracked on level ground;
.
graded loose material on the level and on a ramp;
.
loaded the bucket with road stone (MOT type 1); and
.
slewed the machine at various speeds in both directions.

3.8. The mini-excavators used for testing

The four mini-excavators used in testing were similar in size and character although
two were configured with a sealed operator cab with an access door, and two were of a
canopy configuration (no cab, just a canopy above the operator). All were new
machines that had been manufactured in 2008. Some other key aspects of these
 ECAM
16,4

344
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

Figure 3.
Start configurations for
Tests 3 and 4

Figure 4.
Position of wooden block
to simulate uneven ground
 Stability field
tests

345
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

Figure 5.
Simulated working in
Test 6

machines are shown in Table II but note that detail is purposely sparse here to
maintain machine make and model anonymity.

3.9. The test area and the test operators

Before each test was performed the test areas were levelled and graded so that all
machines operated on the same substrata. Images were taken during trials and all
trials were filmed so that reference could be made to these movies later. Three
operators were chosen for testing, these being: one who was “highly competent” and
 ECAM
16,4

346

Figure 6.
Start position for Test 7
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

Figure 7.
Plan view of test
 Stability field
Machine ID Features
tests
A (Canopy)
Kg: 1,680
Track width: 980 mm
Bucket size: 1,000 mm
Arm length: 2,800 mm 347
B (Cab)
Kg: 1,482
Track width: 970 mm
Bucket size: 900 mm
Arm length: 2,900 mm
C (Cab)
Kg: 1,580
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

Track width: 960 mm

Bucket size: 900 mm
Arm length: 3,000 mm
D (Canopy)
Kg: 1,500 Table II.
Track width: 980 mm Key features of the four
Bucket size: 850 mm mini-excavators used in
Arm length: 2,800 mm the trials

trained; one deemed “competent” and somewhat trained; and one who was a “novice”.
This mix of operators was decided upon so as to provide the widest spectrum of actual
operator performance during tests; and of operator feedback after testing. Each
operator ran each test once.

4. Test results
After testing each machine, the operators considered the excavator’s stability
performance throughout the eight tests, and subjectively scored five criteria. These
criteria were:
(1) “general” operation and performance of the machine when subjected to induced
instability;
(2) responsiveness of the machine’s controls;
(3) blade control;
(4) tracking ability; and
(5) bucket-to-blade for “clean up” activities[2].

The operators did this collectively on a scale of 1 to 10 where; 1 represented the

weakest rating (poor stability); and 10 was the highest possible rating (good stability).
Hence, a maximum possible overall score for each machine was (5 £ 10 ¼ ) 50.
Results of this process are shown in Table III. It can be seen that excavator D ranked
first with a score of 49 (mean criterion score 9.8; SD ¼ 0.2; range ¼ 1.0). Machine A
ranked last with a score of 30 (mean criterion score 6.0; SD ¼ 1.41; range ¼ 4.0).
 ECAM
Machine ID Machine characteristics Criterion score Overall score
16,4
A A1 General operation 6
A2 Responsiveness to controls 6
A3 Blade control 6
A4 Tracking 4
348 A5 Bucket to blade clean up activities 8 30
B B1 General operation 7
B2 Responsiveness to controls 7
B3 Blade control 7
B4 Tracking 9
B5 Bucket to blade clean up activities 8 38
C C1 General operation 9
C2 Responsiveness to controls 9
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

C3 Blade control 9
C4 Tracking 9
C5 Bucket to blade clean up activities 8 44
D D1 General operation 10
D2 Responsiveness to controls 10
Table III. D3 Blade control 10
Qualitative assessment of D4 Tracking 9
the four mini-excavators D5 Bucket to blade clean up activities 10 49

5. Discussion
Mini-excavators are used extensively within construction; their sales have peaked at
almost 12,000 units within the UK in recent years. However, from a health and safety
standpoint, they present significant risks from becoming unstable or turning over
during use.
Of course, these kinds of incidents can relate to the inexperience of the operator or
result from operator-induced error; so it is essential that where the risk of
mini-excavator instability may exist, operators must be appropriately trained,
experienced, and supervised. Therefore, it is stated at the outset that operator best
practice is arguably the most effective way to mitigate the risks of machine instability
or possible turnover during “normal” work operations. However, (as part of an overall
risk assessment and risk control strategy) some of the risk can be removed if the most
stable machine type for the intended work environment is procured at the outset.
Given the limitations of tilt table data on judging mini-excavator stability, it is
logical to carry out dynamic vis-à-vis static stability tests. In that context, the tests
developed here were intended for application at the workplace and were able to assess
a sample of mini-excavators in terms of their stability characteristics. By using a
simple multi-criteria scoring system, an overall stability score was generated. Table III
shows that based on that system of scoring, machine “D” came out top with a score of
49/50 followed by “C”, “B” and finally “A” – the latter scoring 30/50.
In two cases (A and D) lowest criterion score was assigned to “Tracking” which
indicates a feeling of instability by the operator when moving the machine. For
machine B, lowest score was shared among three criteria and for Machine C lowest
score went to “Bucket-to-blade clean up activities”. Clearly, stability characteristics
were perceived quite differently among the four excavators used in the test trials. A
Pearson product-moment correlation test was carried out between the four sets of
 criteria scores using SPSS (version 16). No significant (i.e. p # 0.05) correlations were Stability field
identified. The strongest positive correlation was between scores for cases A and D tests
(r(5) ¼ 0.79, p ¼ 0.11); so although these two machines were ranked furthest apart, the
pattern of their scores was quite similar. This would indicate that the (stability
characteristics) of these two machines were somewhat like-for-like in practice, but on
machine D such were perceived as being much more stable than on machine A.
349
5.1. Invited opinion on the research outcomes
A summary of this study was presented to three members of the workplace transport
section of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (hereafter termed “experts”), who
were identified through the authors’ personal networks. The experts’ feedback was
accordingly invited. In that HSE is a non-partisan body, and to protect the identity of
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

those who responded to that invitation, anonymity has been respected.

The subjective nature of the work was initially confirmed, “. . .[a] subjective set of
tests based on how three operatives ‘felt’ the machine handled” – which is to be
expected from an exploratory, qualitative study of this kind. The possibility therefore,
of operator bias or experiential influence was highlighted, especially, where an
operator might have extensive experience on one of the machine types tested, “. . . one
[operator] may have been driving [machine type] over the past 3 years and is familiar
with the controls and the way it moves, thus negating the [instability] effects that exist
but the operator had ‘normalized ’ . . . ”. Of course, bias is a consideration in all forms of
research and a larger sample in future tests (or the pooling of results from disparate
tests) would help offset this.
Notwithstanding these issues of subjectivity, the experts confirmed that,
“. . . Adding human factors to the assessment of machinery as an idea, is a novel
but interesting approach”. This is indeed novel, because much health and safety
research into plant and machinery focuses upon the assets themselves, not those who
drive or operate them. Encouragingly, the experts went on:
. . . If the tests were replicated, and consistent, replicable results were found [. . .] then I would
agree that these were significant outcomes. It could then be argued that the results might be
useful as a tool for those specifying plant in certain circumstances and for specific work.
It was summarized that the study [explores]:
. . . ways to develop a systematic methodology to capture qualitative information from
machineoperators which can contribute to the selection process employers need to go through
to ensure that the right machine is chosen for the job. Although there is more work to be done
on this concept this paper represents the first effort to get to grips with the problem.
(All linkages/comments in square brackets above, added by the authors).

5.2. Limitations of the present study

The field tests satisfied the aim of the study but improvements could be made. First,
the list of criteria could be expanded to embrace further characteristics of the machines
such as performance when working under more extreme gradients and when carrying
or moving loads. Perhaps these criteria might be determined by surveying a much
larger group of experts; embracing aspects of manufacture too, such as excavator
designers?
 ECAM Second, the tests as presented did not capitalise on the tilt table data that were
16,4 available for the mini-excavators. It might be suggested that these data could be
combined with the subjective scores developed here to produce a kind of hybrid
stability measure? However, the resultant may be, an over complication of the
assessment process. Two things necessary for any new tests to become acceptable at
the workplace are that:
350 (1) they are easy to perform on-site; and
(2) that the results can be easily interpreted.

A converse situation may mean rejection by those intended to benefit from such tests.
A third aspect worth mention is the scoring process. While carried out here by a
group of three operators, this could of course be undertaken individually (e.g. by an
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

experienced operator assessing excavators for use by their employer). Conversely, a

larger assembled group of operators might average their scores as a way of developing
“stability benchmarks” for a range of machines; which would help negate the issues of
operator bias discussed earlier. However, it must be borne in mind that to generalise on
an individual machine basis like this is could be unreliable, because each work setting
will be different and so a machine’s response to that setting will be different too.
Finally, in that results of this study are based on subjective opinions of a small
sample of operators only, if replicated, results will always vary to an extent between:
operators (e.g. differing operator skill); machine types (e.g. size, weight, configuration);
and working environments (e.g. ground conditions, topography). For reasons such as
these, results must be viewed as contributory to plant procurement decisions, not
definitive procurement judgments per se; only competent health and safety
professionals can furnish definitive safety advice after taking account of the specific
circumstances relating to an item of plant and its particular application.

6. Conclusions
Mini-excavator procurement decisions should take account of machine stability (given
the intended working environment) if risks of instability and roll-over are to be
minimised. Presently, manufacturer tilt-table data does not provide a consistent
method for machine users or purchasers to make such (pre-procurement) comparisons
or decisions.
The eight on-site stability field tests presented here are easy to carry out and their
results easy to interpret. Accordingly, they facilitate a way to assess machine stability
(in the absence of any other formal regime being available) and make comparisons
between different plant items; without specialist equipment or knowledge.
The usefulness of the tests was agreed among the group of experts; this being
further confirmed in that one company who collaborated in the research, confidently
based a major mini-excavator investment decision, significantly in part on these
results. They stated that they were satisfied that the testing regime discriminated
adequately between the machines and identified which type of machine was most
stable in relation to their intended work environment (for it).
Future development of these tests might include a broader range of assessment
criteria and work environments (machine activities). Otherwise, it is proffered that the
rationale presented might form the basis of designing on-site operator-assessed
stability tests for mini-excavators, that are simple yet effective enough to witness
 universal adoption throughout construction – so long as they are undertaken in safely Stability field
managed circumstances and not used as the sole health and safety plant procurement tests
decision making tool (appropriate health and safety decisions must embrace
appropriate professional advice in all circumstances).

Notes
351
1. This is “rule-of-thumb”. Some manufacturers also define heavier variants as “minis” while
others might describe them as “micros”, “midis” or “compacts” depending on their weight
(see JCB, 2008).
2. Blade control relates to the machine’s grading blade fitted to the front of the machine that
can be raised and lowered hydraulically; tracking is the name given to moving forwards and
backwards on the machines tracks; bucket-to-blade operation involves using the bucket and
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

blade to tidy and scoop up loose material which very often involves scooping the bucket
towards and against the blade to help fill it.

References
Abo-Shanab, R.F. and Sepehril, N. (2005a), “Dynamic modelling of tip-over stability of mobile
manipulators considering the friction effects”, Robotica, Vol. 23, pp. 189-96.
Abo-Shanab, R.F. and Sepehril, N. (2005b), “Tip-over stability of manipulator-like mobile
hydraulic machines”, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, Vol. 127
No. 2, pp. 295-301.
BSI (1992), Safety of Earth-moving Machinery – Part 9: Methods for the Calculation and
Verification of the Lift Capacity of Hydraulic ExcavatorsBS 6912-9:1992, British
Standards Institution, London.
BSI (1996), Industrial Trucks Operating in Special Conditions of Stacking with Load Laterally
Displaced by Powered Devices — Additional Stability Test. BS ISO 10658:1996, British
Standards Institution, London.
BSI (1998), Industrial Trucks – Rough Terrain Trucks – Stability Tests. BS ISO 8379:1998,
British Standards Institution, London.
BSI (2000), Earth-moving Machinery – Roll-over Protective Structures – Laboratory Tests and
Performance Requirements. BS EN 13510:2000, British Standards Institution, London.
BSI (2001), Earth-moving Machinery – Tip-over Protection Structure (TOPS) for Compact
Excavators – Laboratory Tests and Performance Requirements. (ISO 12117:1997
modified). BS EN 13531:2001, British Standards Institution, London.
BSI (2006), Earth-moving Machinery – Safety – Part 5: Requirements for Hydraulic Excavators.
BS EN 474-5:2006, British Standards Institution, London.
Contract Journal (2008), “Driver error to blame for Croydon excavator accident”, Contract
Journal, available at: www.contractjournal.com/Articles/2007/09/25/56320/
driver-error-to-blame-for-croydon-excavator-accident.html (October, 2008).
Darshi De Saram, D. and Tang, S.L. (2005), “Pain and suffering costs of persons in construction
accidents: Hong Kong experience”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23
No. 6, pp. 645-58.
Edwards, D.J. and Holt, G.D. (2006), “Hand-arm vibration exposure from construction tools:
results of a field study”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24, pp. 209-17.
Edwards, D.J. and Holt, G.D. (2008), “Health and safety issues relating to construction excavators
and their attachments”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 15
No. 4, pp. 321-35.
 ECAM Edwards, D.J., Harris, F.C. and McCaffer, R. (2003), Management of Off-highway Plant and
Equipment, Spon Press, London.
16,4 Griffith, A. and Howarth, T. (2001), Construction Health and Safety Management, Pearson,
London.
Han, J., Tao, L., Chen, G. and Zhao, C. (2008), “Stability analysis of cross direction moving on the
sloping ground for walking mobile excavator”, Transactions of the Chinese Society of
Agricultural Machinery, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 88-93.
352
HSE (2005), Workplace Transport Safety. An Employer’s Guide, HSE Books, London.
HSE (2006a), Construction Site Transport Safety: Safe Use of Site Dumpers. Health and Safety
Executive Information Sheet. Ref No. 52, (rev1) available at: www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis52.
pdf (accessed October, 2008).
HSE (2006b), Five Steps to Risk Assessment. The Health and Safety Executive, Document ref:
INDG163(rev2) 06/06. ISBN 0-7176-6189-X.
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

HSE (2008a), Rollover Results in Stark Warning for Plant Hire Firms from HSE, press release,
COI 269/W/08, Health and Safety Executive, 19 May, available at: http://hse.gov.uk/press/
2008/coiw26908.htm (October, 2008).
HSE (2008b), Steep Slope Working in Forestry. Health and Safety Executive Guidance, available
at: www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/afag705.pdf (October, 2008).
Hughes, P. and Ferret, E. (2007), Introduction to Health and Safety in Construction, 2nd ed.,
Elsevier, London.
JCB (2008), Machine Product Range, available at: www.jcb.com/products/MachineRange.aspx
(October, 2008).
Scarlett, A.J., Reed, J.N., Semple, D.A., Seward, P.C., Stockton, A.D. and Price, J.S. (2006), Operator
Roll-over Protection on Small Vehicles. Health and Safety Executive, Research Report 432.
(03/06), HSE Books, London.
Seward, D., Pace, C., Morrey, R. and Sommerville, I. (2000), “Safety analysis of autonomous
excavator functionality”, Reliability, Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 70, pp. 29-39.
St John Holt, A. (2005), Principles of Construction Safety, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Teo, A.I.L., Ling, F.Y.Y. and Ong, D.S.Y. (2005), “Fostering safe work behaviour at construction
sites”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management., Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 410-22.
Webb, J. (2004), Mathematical Modelling of the Stability of Passenger-carrying Tandem Seat
All-terrain Vehicle (ATV). Health and Safety Executive, Research Report 223, HSE Books,
London.
WorkSafe (2008), “Excavator operator drowns, alert from WorkSafe Victoria”, available at:
www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/ebd31c078b81519/
Excavator%20operator%20drowns.pdf (October, 2008).

Further reading
HSE (2008c), “HSE warns firms to ensure adequate preparations after Flintshire company’s crane
collapses”, Health and Safety Executive News Distribution Service, available at: http://nds.
coi.gov.uk/content/detail.asp?NewsAreaID ¼ 2&ReleaseID ¼ 374574 (October, 2008).

Corresponding author
Gary D. Holt can be contacted at: g.d.holt@lboro.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Lingard Helen School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University,
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Cooke Tracy School of Property, Construction and Project Management,
RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Gharaie Ehsan Sustainable Built Environment National
Research Centre, Swinburne University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia . 2013. A case study analysis of
fatal incidents involving excavators in the Australian construction industry. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management 20:5, 488-504. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Helen LingardSchool of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University,
Melbourne, Australia Tracy CookeSchool of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT
University, Melbourne, Australia Ehsan GharaieSustainable Built Environment National Research Centre,
Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia. 2013. The how and why of plant‐related fatalities in the
Australian construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 20:4, 365-380.
Downloaded by Professor David John Edwards At 10:36 06 March 2018 (PT)

[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

3. Gary D. Holt, David J. Edwards. 2013. Analysis of United Kingdom Off-Highway Construction
Machinery Market and Its Consumers Using New-Sales Data. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 139:5, 529-537. [CrossRef]
4. David J. Edwards, Gary D. Holt. 2011. Mini-Excavator Safety: Toward Innovative Stability Testing,
Procurement, and Manufacture. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 137:12, 1125-1133.
[CrossRef]
5. David J. EdwardsDepartment of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, UK Gary D. HoltDepartment of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough
University, Loughborough, UK. 2010. Case study analysis of construction excavator H&S overturn
incidents. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 17:5, 493-511. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]

View publication stats