In July 2012 a new version of EN 795 about anchoring devices was published. Under normal circumstances this new version would have reached the status of a harmonized standard, but now, because of a formal objection filed in August 2012 by the Government of France, which remains the standard harmonized to the effects of the PPE Directive is 795 : 1996 + A1: 2000. Here's a summary of the current situation and the main changes introduced by the new standard.
If there is a technical standard that generates debate and on which there is tremendous confusion that is 795 on the anchor devices for fall protection systems. In fact, this post could well be titled "What the hell happened to the 795" or "Does anyone understand something new standard anchoring devices?". This is a (modest) attempt to clear things up.
Background
In 1996 the standard was published 795 - Fall Protection Equipment - anclaje- devices in order to support the essential safety requirements of the European Directive 89/686 / EEC, which is the directive on personal protective equipment . The project was ambitious due to the diversity of devices intended to regulate and was a challenge from the beginning. This led to the need to classify devices into six classes:
Class A1: anchoring devices designed to be fixed on vertical, horizontal or inclined surfaces
Class A2: Structural anchorages to be fixed on pitched roofs
Class B: temporary anchorage devices and portable
C Class: flexible anchor lines horizontal
Class D: horizontal rigid anchor rails
Class E: Deadweight anchors
After a period of settlement, the matter was settled devices excluding Class A, C and D of the definition of EPI. Today, these devices still can be tested under the test conditions defined in EN 795: 1996, they do not meet the essential requirements of the directive (remember the definition of PPE) and therefore can not take CE .
As a solution to this new situation the possibility of certifying devices A, C and D through the 89/106 / EEC on construction products and the class B and E through the directive it was rated 89/686 / EEC on EPI, but this never materialized. Currently, only the anchors permanently attached to the structure under Directive 89/106 / EEC.
This situation, as we can imagine, is a tremendous complication for manufacturers and installation companies that they see them and want to show your customers that the products they offer, especially life-horizontal lines are safe despite not take CE .
Publication 795: 2012
In July 2012 finally was published anticipated new version of EN 795. This new version, which was born with a vocation to be a harmonized standard in its entirety and end the confusion, it contains aspects that extend and modify many of the contents of EN 795: 1996 (see summary table at end of article).
To begin with the will to make it clear that different types of anchoring systems do not differ in terms of security but construction, and no mention of classes anchoring devices but types, an important change undoubtedly but the really significant developments are further and found its object and scope: with the firm intention to avoid past mistakes and make clear from the outset that only apply to anchoring devices that fit the definition of PPE standard clarifies that "addresses anchoring devices for a single user (EPI), intended as a demountable structure (EPI) in which they are installed.
Yes, you read that right: devices to a single user and can also be removed from the structure. And what then happens with the anchors intended for use by two or more users simultaneously, including the horizontal lifeline? Or with anchors that can not be removed from the structure, such as chemical clamps Petzl Batinox? First things first.
One of the most momentous developments in the EN 795: 2012 is that unlike devices designed for a single user, multiuser devices - life-horizontal lines must also comply with a technical specification (document a junior EN ), namely CEN / TS 16415: 2013.
The test methods contained in this document are very similar to those found in EN 795, but also more strict to ensure that these devices are able to withstand the fall of several users. For example, the dynamic resistance test is performed with a mass of 200 kg to simulate the fall of two users simultaneously. For each additional user, it becomes to make a dynamic test of strength with an additional mass of 100 kg.
This technical specification is complementary to EN 795: 2012, which means for example a horizontal lifeline cable must comply with both the EN and with the TS (Technical Specification, in its acronym in English).
Fixed vs removable devices
An anchoring device is defined by the 795 as an element or series of elements or components that incorporate one or more anchor points. In EN 795: 1996, this definition included the anchoring devices that are installed permanently in the structure and can not be removed or dismantled, even for inspection. An example of this would be a soldier in a beam anchor.
However, EN 795: 2012 only covers anchoring devices that can be removed from the structure, if only for review, and can be placed back in the same place. This does not mean that anchor devices can not be permanently fixed by welding or other means, but these may not be certified under the new standard.
Anchor device: An element or series of elements or components that incorporate one or more anchor points.
Anchor Point: element that can be connected to personal protective equipment after installation of the anchoring device.
Structural anchor: the anchor is fixed to the structure: their function is to provide support or to an anchoring device (eg a threaded rod fixed by chemical paste which is placed a sheet) or function as device anchor itself because it already has an anchor point (type Petzl Batinox tensioners) The latter does not fulfill the EN 795:. 2012, but the EN 795: 1996.
In this case, if the anchor is not considered PPE can be used a component in the instructions indicated as an anchoring device. The manufacturer has been able to apply the rule or not. Another option is to use an element designed and calculated as anchoring device by a qualified person-usually one engineer, and made especially for a particular purpose.
Fastening element: is the element whose function is to provide support for an anchoring device but, unlike the structural anchor, it can be removed from the structure. For example, it would be a fixing screw passing through a wing of an IPN and on which a sheet can place anchor.
In short, the new rule makes interpretation somewhat forced what is EPI and what does not and cataloged as such to the vast majority of anchoring devices collected in five types: if you can remove it from the frame and take it to house, be it a plate or a lifeline cable (!) This, according to the new rule, fall within the definition of PPE and therefore can now receive the CE mark. Confused? You are not the only one.
Formal objection of the French Government
As I mentioned at the beginning, in normal circumstances this new version of the 795 would have achieved the status of a harmonized standard, but in August 2012, the French government lodged a formal objection with the European Commission, and the harmonization of the standard was paralyzed. As a result, the rule remains harmonized for the purposes of the PPE Directive today remains the EN 795: 1996. This situation will continue until the new version is not published as a harmonized standard in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). Nobody said this was going to be easy!
You can consult the list of harmonized standards for PPE here (website of the European Commission).
Although some devices are outside the scope of the new standard 795: 2012 -anclajes structural-this, in France the government opinion, still contains devices that do not fit the definition of EPI - reason that has prompted your complaint . Indeed, France considers that the anchoring devices type A, C and D of the new standard can not under any circumstances be considered "detachable and / or transportable" and thus EPI.
Instead, the promoters of the new law (including the European -Committee CEN, standardization and European Manufacturers ESF -Association EPI argue that such anchoring devices can be removed (for review, for example) should therefore only considered "anchoring device" that actually removable part (for example, an anchorage system consisting of a "plate" bolted to a pad with chemical fixation, only the first would be considered "anchoring device" while the second would be labeled as "structure" or structural anchor).
At this junction of reports (in English) between the French authorities and the CEN and ESF can be read in detail the positions of both parties.
Conclusions
Despite the current situation of confusion, the new standard is a significant improvement on the 795. 1996 While the latter is what remains harmonized within the meaning of the PPE Directive today, many manufacturers certify their products under the new standard in many respects-more restrictive so the current trend, waiting for this situation of uncertainty is resolved, is to install and use anchor devices certified under updated standard.
Major changes introduced by the EN 795: 2012
➔ The standard covers only devices designed for a single user
➔ The devices designed for use by several users must meet a Technical Specification CEN / TS 16415
➔ The rule states that to avoid usage errors, anchor devices designed for restraint systems must be tested for fall arrest conditions (fall)
➔ anchors permanently attached to the structure so they are considered part of this and are therefore outside the scope of the standard (not be marked CE). However, they can be tested according to EN 795
➔ static strength requirements go from 10 kN to 12 kN and metal devices for 10 to 18 kN for textile devices
➔ The cable terminable closed with dogs are not accepted by the new standard
➔ The new law is not retroactive. Systems certified according to EN 795: 1996 are still valid
No comments:
Post a Comment