Mediating a Press Manual for a UK Maintenance Team
Your company supplies a 4 mm sheet-metal press to a customer in Leeds. The German manual was written in-house; the English version came back from a translation agency with the renderings listed below. The customer's maintenance team will work from this document, and their safety officer has asked for a revised version of the four paragraphs.
German source: „Bestimmungsgemäße Verwendung: Die Presse darf nur zum Kaltumformen von Blechen bis 4 mm eingesetzt werden. Quetschgefahr an der Schließkante! Vor Wartungsarbeiten die Anlage drucklos schalten und gegen Wiedereinschalten sichern. Der Betreiber muss eine Gefährdungsbeurteilung durchführen.“
Agency renderings: 'Determined use'; 'Crush danger at the closing edge!'; 'Before maintenance switch the plant pressureless and secure against switching on again'; 'The operator must carry out a danger assessment.'
1. Produce a revised English version of the four paragraphs and justify at least three of your terminology decisions.
Read the worked answer
Revised version
Intended use - The press may be used only for the cold forming of sheet metal up to 4 mm thick.
Risk of crushing at the closing edge! Keep hands clear of the closing edge whenever the press is powered.
Before any maintenance work: depressurise the machine, isolate it from the pressure supply and secure it against reconnection (lock off and tag).
The operating company must carry out a risk assessment before the press is put into service.
Terminology decisions
- Bestimmungsgemäße Verwendung → intended use, not 'determined use'. 'Determined' in English means resolute; a UK reader would take the heading to mean something about determination, and the legal scope of the CE declaration would be lost.
- Quetschgefahr → risk of crushing. The English warning convention is hazard + consequence + avoidance, so the bare noun phrase is expanded into a warning plus an instruction the fitter can act on.
- drucklos schalten und gegen Wiedereinschalten sichern → depressurise, isolate and lock off. 'Pressureless' is not used predicatively in English engineering text and describes a state rather than the required action; the German instruction is an energy-isolation procedure, and UK maintainers expect the lockout/tagout wording.
- Betreiber → operating company, not 'operator'. In English 'operator' is the person at the machine, so the agency version silently transfers a legal duty to the wrong party.
- Gefährdungsbeurteilung → risk assessment, the established English term, not 'danger assessment'.
2. The safety officer argues the agency version is not merely clumsy but unsafe. Explain, with reference to the specific renderings, why this is a fair criticism.
Read the worked answer
The criticism is fair, for four distinct reasons.
- Recognition time. A warning only works if it is parsed instantly. 'Crush danger at the closing edge' is unidiomatic; the reader's attention goes to the odd phrasing rather than to the hazard. Warning text must follow the reader's expected pattern - hazard, consequence, avoidance.
- State versus action. 'Switch the plant pressureless' reads as a description of a condition, not an instruction sequence. A fitter can believe the line is already depressurised because the gauge reads zero while stored energy remains in an accumulator. 'Depressurise and isolate' is an action with a verifiable end state.
- Missing safety concept. 'Secure against switching on again' does not name lockout. English-language maintenance practice is built around lock and tag; without those words the procedure is not auditable and a colleague can re-energise the press.
- Misdirected responsibility. 'The operator must carry out a danger assessment' tells the machine user to do something that is legally the employer's duty. In a UK context this could be read as shifting liability, which is exactly what an instruction manual must not do.
Conclusion for the reply to the customer The issue is not style. Each of these renderings either delays comprehension of a hazard or changes who must do what, and both are defects that a review against the source text should have caught.
3. The customer now says they also want to run 5 mm aluminium sheet. Explain why the English text may not simply be edited to say 'up to 5 mm', and what has to happen instead.
Read the worked answer
Why a silent edit is not acceptable
- The intended-use paragraph is not descriptive prose; it defines the boundary of the CE conformity assessment. Force, frame stiffness, guard openings and the stopping performance were all assessed for cold forming of steel up to 4 mm. A different material and a 25 % greater thickness change the force and the stored energy.
- Aluminium behaves differently from steel: lower strength but different springback and tool adhesion, so tooling and ejection may need review as well.
- Once the text says 5 mm, the manufacturer is declaring that boundary. If an accident occurs outside the assessed envelope, the manual itself is the evidence against the supplier.
Correct process
- Technical clarification: calculate the required forming force and check frame, drive and tooling against the 5 mm aluminium case.
- If the machine is capable, re-run the risk assessment for the new envelope (ejection, tool access, light-curtain or guard positioning).
- Update the technical file and the declaration, then issue a controlled revision of the manual in both languages simultaneously - the German source must not lag behind the English.
- If the machine is not capable, the manual keeps 4 mm and the customer is offered a technical solution instead.
Note for the student answer The linguistic point is that a translation is a rendering of a fixed technical statement, whereas a specification change is an engineering decision. Confusing the two is the actual risk here.