UNIT NO. 2.

RATING OF LIFTING GEAR FOR GENERAL PURPOSES

This unit considers the rating of lifting equipment, that is to say how we establish the
maximum load that an item may lift in any particular circumstance. Depending on your daily
duties you will already be familiar with various types of lifting equipment. The principles for
rating the various items are much the same, however we will look more closely at slings as
they require a more detailed explanation.

Initially it is necessary to understand some basic terms. Much of the testers and examiners
work is related to the law and to standards. The terms used in the legislation, the standards,
found in manufacturers literature and in various codes of practice are in everyday use. It is
surprising then that many testers and examiners do not understand their correct meaning. Let
us consider these terms as a preliminary to our studies in this unit.

1. Lifting Equipment
This term is used in two different ways in LOLER. It is a generic term used to cover all
lifting accessories and appliances, but also has a more specific meaning covering lifting
appliances and their anchorages and fixings.

2. Lifting Accessories
Any device such as a sling, shackle, eyebolt, clamp, spreader beam etc used to connect
the load to a lifting appliance but which is not itself part of the load or the appliance.
At one time lifting accessories were referred to as ‘lifting gear’ or ‘lifting tackle’.
Although both these terms are still in common use, ‘lifting accessories’ is the only term
used in the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations and LOLER. This course,
Lifting Gear General, is concerned with lifting accessories and we will often use the
term ‘lifting gear’ or simply ‘gear’ in the text.

3. Lifting Machine/Lifting Appliance

A device or mechanism, such as a crane, crab, winch, pulley block, gin wheel, chain
block, which does the work in lifting the load or provides the means of movement, or
the supporting structure and anchoring devices for such a mechanism, eg runway,
gantry etc, which may also permit a suspended load to be moved in the horizontal
plane. These items are covered by the term ‘lifting equipment’ in LOLER.

4. Working Load Limit (WLL sometimes called maximum SWL)

The maximum load or mass that an item of lifting equipment is designed to sustain, ie
raise, lower or suspend. This is the load required to be marked on an item by the
product standards.

5. Safe Working Load (SWL)

The maximum load or mass (as certified by a competent person) that an item of lifting
equipment may raise, lower or suspend under particular service conditions. It is the
SWL which is required to be marked on the item by LOLER and which appears on any
report of thorough examination.

6. The Minimum Breaking (or failure) Load (MBL)

training\2-5u 1
 The minimum breaking load is the calculated load at which a sample of the item will
break or fail. From this value is derived the WLL etc. In order to ensure that this value
has been achieved for some products, eg wire rope, a sample may be tested to
destruction and the actual breaking load recorded, or the wire from which the rope is
made is tested and the aggregate breaking load is calculated. Other items are designed
so as to sustain the WLL plus a minimum factor of safety, eg a roundsling, however
they may fail if this is increased by only a tiny amount. For practical purposes we can
consider these tests to be the same. For a new product a sample must not fail under
test at a lesser amount than the minimum specified in the relevant standard. The MBL
should be expressed in the SI unit of force (Newtons) or Mass (tonnes, kilograms), as
required by the relevant standard.

7. Factor of Safety (FOS), Coefficient of Utilisation, Working Coefficient

These terms all have much the same meaning, but perhaps Factor of Safety describes
the function better than the more recent terms, which are replacing it in standards and
legislation. It is a factor which is applied to the MBL to determine the WLL. It varies
with the product to take account of the susceptibility to damage and considers the type
of stresses the item will meet in normal use.

Where the conditions of use are more severe than those considered by the product
standard, eg in a chemical environment, the user will apply an increased FOS, so
reducing the value of the SWL from that of the WLL.

8. Mode Factor
A factor applied by the user (slinger or rigger) that takes into account the geometry of
a sling assembly to obtain the maximum load he may lift for a particular mode of use.
When rating and marking slings, an assumption is made that the sling leg will be in
straight pull, if this condition is varied, eg choke hitch, the load in the sling leg will also
vary. The mode factor takes account of this, as the marked SWL is the maximum load
that may be applied to the leg, its correct use ensures that the leg will not be
overloaded.

Note: Some confusion exists as to the WLL and SWL. The WLL is determined by the
designer/manufacturer and is based on the mechanical properties of the item. A competent
person specifies the SWL, based on the use to which the item will be put and will be
dependant on:
(i) Whether the load is dead or alive
(ii) The consequences of failure, eg when carrying radioactive material the
risk is high and a greater factor of safety is called for
(iii) How the load is applied, eg slowly or suddenly
(iv) The degree of possible misjudgement of weights or angles
(v) The duty cycle and working environment
(vi) Any other factors which affect the safe working life of the item or the safety of
the lifting operation.

The marked SWL normally has the same value as the WLL , but it may be less. For instance, in
coal mining and nuclear power stations the WLL is often significantly reduced to obtain the
SWL, as there are particular dangers associated with these activities and these call for higher
safety margins than in, say, an engineering works. For new equipment, the WLL/SWL should
be expressed in SI units of mass, ie tonnes and kilograms. Older items may still be found in
service which are marked in the imperial units of tons and hundredweights.

training\2-5u 2
Manufacturers of standard or series produced items, who do not know the application in
which the item will be used, specify the WLL, leaving the individual users to decide whether
or not the ‘factor of safety’ is sufficient for their particular application. Where an item is being
specially manufactured for a specific application the designer is able to take all of the relevant
matters into account and can use the applicable factors, thus he is able to specify the SWL
which is to be marked on the item.

RATING OF LIFTING GEAR

LOLER requires that the SWL is clearly marked on all items of lifting equipment, however
both standards and the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations require all newly
manufactured lifting equipment to be marked with the WLL. This is not really a contradiction,
as they will usually have the same value. As we noted above, it is only when conditions of use
require additional safety margins that the user will apply a factor greater than that normally
associated with the item. This may then require him to re-mark the item with the SWL.

Whilst old, pre-LOLER, legislation permitted certain slings to be unmarked and a table of
appropriate SWL’s to be displayed no such items should now exist. British Standards have, for
many years, recommend that all gear be marked with its maximum SWL or WLL because of
the difficulties often found in reading tables in industrial situations and the possibility of
incorrect material or grade identification. The adoption of the uniform load method of rating
slings has also rendered the use of charts obsolete. LOLER now requires all items to be
marked with the SWL.

With most items of lifting equipment, the marked SWL is arrived at by making a simple
mathematical calculation applying a factor of safety to the designed minimum-breaking load.
This is then the marked WLL and is the maximum load the item may sustain. With slings the
situation is more complex. Whilst the WLL of the sling in straight pull can be established this
way, if the sling is to be rigged in any other way, eg choke hitch, further calculation by the
slinger or rigger is necessary to find the maximum load that may be lifted. Sling users must
therefore apply the correct mode factor for the particular type of sling and its configuration of
use.

RATING OF MULTI-LEG SLINGS

The rating of multi-leg slings can be very complex and calls for the designer to make certain
assumptions about the use of the sling. As the angle that the sling leg makes to the vertical
affects the stress in the leg (see LEEA Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Lifting
Equipment Appendix 1.5 paragraph 1A5.3.3.1 and Figure 1A5.8), this is taken into
account and it is a matter of geometry to establish the maximum load that can be lifted.

There are two methods of rating multi-leg slings: the uniform load method and the
trigonometrical method. The calculation to establish the WLL is however based on the same
principle for both methods. From our Part 1 studies we know that if a force is applied to a
sling leg, which is disposed at an angle, then the resultant load in the leg will be greater than
the force applied. In fact it will increase by a factor equal to the cosine of the angle that the
sling leg makes to the vertical. With the uniform load method of rating we limit the calculation
to only two angles, 45 to the vertical for general use and 60 to the vertical for additional
use, whilst with the trigonometric method the calculation is made for the specific angle to the
vertical that the sling leg will be used at.

(i) Uniform Load Method

training\2-5u 3
This method was first recommended in a British Standard Publication PD 6464 (1972) and
subsequently specified in BS 6166: Part 1 1986. It is the preferred method for rating all
general purpose slings and is used internationally. It should be used for rating ALL general
purpose slings and is the only method detailed in Harmonised Standards that support the
European Machinery Directive.

By the uniform load method, a multi-leg sling is rated with a maximum load for use at any
angle within the permitted range. This has many advantages for both the user and the sling
manufacturer. As the WLL is calculated based on an angle of 45 to the vertical and limited to
this WLL when the angle is reduced, (a) users do not have to judge different angles and
calculate the actual load that may then be lifted and (b) manufacturers can use master links
which are capable of carrying the WLL at that angle only and can therefore use lighter
construction links than would be necessary if the WLL was allowed to increase as the angle
decreased.

Traditionally in the UK the rating was expressed in terms of the included angle, ie the angle
between the opposite sling legs, of 0-90 and in special cases additionally at an included angle
between 90-120. This method of expressing the rating for three-leg slings then calls for the
user to double the angle of the leg to the vertical to obtain the ‘included’ angle, as there is no
opposite leg. Although this method of marking is not now used, many existing slings will be
found in use marked this way.

The Harmonised European Standards for various slings take a different approach expressing
the rating at the angle of the legs to the vertical. This is a more logical approach as this is the
angle that is actually used in establishing the WLL, it emphasises that the angle of each leg
affects the share of the load it will carry and, in the case of three leg slings is more easily
understood by the user. The working load limits are shown at 0-45 and in special cases 45-
60. So that users will not be confused, it is recommended that a tag or label with a pictogram
is used similar to that shown in figure 1.

Figure 1

Although we will consider the assumptions made in rating multi-leg slings later in this unit, we
should note here that, in the case of four leg slings, the uniform load method of rating assumes
that only three of the legs will effectively carry the load and that the fourth leg will only serve
to balance the load. Therefore the rating for three and four leg slings is the same.

The following chart shows the design factors that should be applied to the WLL of a single leg
to establish the WLL of multi-leg sling assemblies or where a number of single slings are being
used in combination.

0-45 45-60
(0-90 (90-120)

Two leg sling 1.4 1.0

training\2-5u 4
 Three and Four leg sling 2.1 1.5

Design Factors

Figure 2 shows how the angle is measured for two, three, and four leg slings. β is the symbol
used to indicate the angle to the vertical and α is used to indicate the traditional included
angle.
α=2β

(a) Two leg sling

(b) Three leg sling

(c) Four leg sling

Figure 2

The master and intermediate links of slings designed strictly in accordance with the uniform
load method are capable of supporting the maximum rated load marked on the sling at any
angle between those specified. They may therefore be weaker than those that would be used in
the case of trigonometrically rated slings and should not be used to support greater loads at
reduced angles.

training\2-5u 5
(ii) Trigonometrical Method
This method was traditionally used in the UK to calculate the WLL of slings at various angles
of the legs to the vertical. Even after the publication of BS 6166 in 1986, many manufacturers
continued to use this method until the adoption of the Harmonised European Standards. It
provided the means of preparing the tables required by the older lifting equipment regulations.
The trigonometric method is the non-preferred method of rating. If used now it should be
restricted to slings designed for a single purpose, eg the top sling of a lifting frame, where the
angle of use cannot not be altered. Although still permitted by the Supply of Machinery
(Safety) Regulations and LOLER, its use has almost ceased since sling manufacturers have
adopted Harmonised Standards.

The WLL is calculated using the design factors as follows:

For a two-leg sling (Fig 2a)

WLL = 2 x WLL of a single leg x cos β

For a three-leg sling (Fig 2b)

WLL = 3 x WLL of a single leg x cos β

For a four-leg sling (Fig 2c)

WLL = 4 x WLL of single leg x cos β

Example:
A two-leg chain sling is used to lift a load with an included angle between the legs of
60 If the WLL of a single leg is 2 tonnes, calculate the WLL of the sling for this lift.

WLL of the sling = 2 x WLL of a single leg x cos β

Figure 3

From the diagram, β = 30 Cosine 30 = 0.866 (from trigonometrical tables)

... WLL of the sling = 2 x WLL of a single leg x Cos 30

Hence WLL of the sling = 3.46 tonnes

In this case the master and intermediate links must be designed to be capable of carrying the
maximum load that can be lifted by the sling for any calculated angle of use. They are
therefore larger than those used for the uniform load method. Care must also be taken in the
case of existing four leg slings rated this way, as they will usually have been assembled
assuming that all four legs carry an equal share of the load, but in more recent times some
manufacturers may have adopted the rating assumption that only three legs will carry the load.
It is therefore vital that testers and examiners establish how the sling is assembled and rated.

training\2-5u 6
Assumptions for the Rating of Multi-leg Slings
We said that, in calculating the WLL of multi-leg slings, some fundamental assumptions have
to be made by the designer (or standard writers), these are:
(a) The sling legs are identical in all respects except that the lower terminal fittings may
vary. (The leg lengths may vary in cases where the points of attachment to the load are
not in the same horizontal plane provided that the loading is equal, see f).
(b) The terminal fittings are connected to the lifting appliance and the load attachment
points in such a manner that the legs are not bent across or around the load, choked,
back hooked or otherwise prevented from taking up a straight line under load.
(c) All legs are at the same angle to the vertical.
(d) The angle or range of angles between the sling legs at which the sling is rated is not
exceeded.
(e) The sling legs are symmetrically disposed in plan, ie for three-leg slings all angles
between legs in plan view are equal and for four-leg slings, the opposite angles
between adjacent legs in plan are equal.
(f) For four-leg slings the length of each leg exactly matches the position of attachment
points. If this is not achieved most or all of the weight will be carried by only two legs
of the sling.

MARKING
Before being used, all lifting gear must be marked, either directly or by means of a tag
attached to it, with the following data:

(a) Identification data

(b) Quality mark or material identification
(c) SWL; and for new equipment
(d) Any other marks required by the standard being worked to or by legislation, eg CE
mark.

Markings should be readily visible, permanent and legible and if on the lifting gear they should
not affect its strength, eg cause ‘notch effect’, chemical reaction, etc. The size of characters
used should be chosen so as not to impair the mechanical properties of the item. Where a tag
is used, the identification data should (where possible) be marked directly on the item so that if
the tag is lost the documentation can be traced and the information retrieved. In the case of
webbing slings and roundslings this should be on a part of the label enclosed by a stitched
portion of the sling or cover.

Marking of Multi-leg Slings

(1) Slings rated by the uniform load method should be permanently made up and marked
with SWL in the following manner:

For included angles 0 to 90 :- eg SWL 6.3t 0 - 45,

For included angles 90 to 120 :-eg SWL 4t 45 - 60,

Where users have a mix of slings marked in terms of the included angle, they should be
encouraged to consider re-marking them with the angle expressed to the vertical so as
to avoid confusion in use.

(2) Slings rated by the trigonometrical method should be permanently made up and
marked with the SWL at the specific angle in the following manner:

training\2-5u 7
 SWL 6.3t at 45

Note For three-leg slings the included angle range  (or for older slings 0 to 90 for
uniform load method, or 45(or for older slings 90 for trigonometrical method,
refers to a condition when any leg does not exceed 45 to the vertical.

You are also advised to read appendix 1.5 LEEA Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Lifting
Equipment where a fuller explanation is given. Some guidance will also be found in the text of
the standard being worked to.

MODE FACTORS APPLIED BY THE USER (CHOKE HITCH/BASKET HITCH)

If a choke hitch is used in the slinging arrangement, then the marked SWL will be derated by
the use of a mode factor to establish the maximum load the slinging arrangement may be used
to lift. The amount by which the sling is derated depends on the material and the appropriate
mode factors are specified in the various product standards.

Similarly if a sling is used in a basket hitch, the actual load that may be lifted will be greater
than the marked SWL. Again this will vary with the material, the angle of the sling parts and
other factors. Details of the mode factors are given in the relevant product standards.

By way of revision, you are advised to read those sections of the Code of Practice for the Safe
Use of Lifting Equipment that give details of slings as the design and mode factors, including
those to be applied due to the rigging arrangement, are fully detailed and explained.

PRACTICAL CONVERSIONS FOR USE IN RATING LIFTING EQUIPMENT

As equipment manufactured to imperial standards may still be found in use alongside
equipment to metric standards, and as it may be desirable to have all of the equipment in a
factory marked with its safe working load in the same units to avoid operative error, standard
conversions are used. The British Standards Institute offers the following guidance with regard
to marking SWL when converting from imperial to metric units:

"Safe Working Loads of less than 1000kg should be marked in kilograms to the nearest whole
kilogram. SWL's of 1000kg or more should be marked in tonnes. Only one place of decimals
should be used except for 1.25t; for integral values of SWL the ‘0’ after the decimal point
should be omitted."

This system has certain advantages when converting from imperial to metric units or where a
mix of metric and imperial rated equipment exists side by side as it avoids the possibility of
metric markings being confused with tons and hundredweights. If, by accident, the metric
figure after the decimal place is read as cwts, the mistake will always be on the safe side since,
in fact, the single decimal figure is always half the equivalent cwts.

This system of marking can also be used when an item is produced which is not to a standard,
eg a spreader or lifting frame. Items produced in compliance with Harmonised Standards
should be marked in accordance with the standard.

The following table gives examples of the conversions; others can then be calculated on the
same basis.

Examples of the Conversions:

training\2-5u 8
 1 cwt = 50kg 1 Ton = 1 t 1 Ton 11 cwt = 1.5 t
1 Ton 1 cwt = 1 t 1 Ton 12 cwt = 1.6 t
2 cwt = 100kg 1 Ton 2 cwt = 1.1 t 1 Ton 13 cwt = 1.6 t
1 Ton 3 cwt = 1.1 t 1 Ton 14 cwt = 1.7 t
5 cwt = 250kg 1 Ton 4 cwt = 1.2 t 1 Ton 15 cwt = 1.7 t
1 Ton 5 cwt = 1.25 t 1 Ton 16 cwt = 1.8 t
7½ cwt = 375kg 1 Ton 6 cwt = 1.3 t 1 Ton 17 cwt = 1.8 t
1 Ton 7 cwt = 1.3 t 1 Ton 18 cwt = 1.9 t
10 cwt = 500kg 1 Ton 8 cwt = 1.4 t 1 Ton 19 cwt = 1.9 t
12½ cwt = 625kg 1 Ton 9 cwt = 1.4 t 2 Ton = 2 t
15 cwt = 750kg 1 Ton 10 cwt = 1.5 t
It will be noted from the table that in the case of, say, 1 ton 3 cwt, the exact conversion would
be 1.15t, but as the second decimal place is disregarded, this becomes 1.1 t.

Examples

(i) ¾ ton = 750 kg.

(ii) 1 ton 5 cwt = 1.25 t.
(iii) 4 ton 17 cwt = 4.8 t.

training\2-5u 9