ADELAIDE ENGINEERING REPORT

OCTOBER 2007 - MANAGERS CONFERENCE

LOAD EQUALISATION

Purpose - To investigate the various methods of load equalisation and their effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION

Load equalisation in multi leg slings is a rare occurrence. If all slings are to carry equal amounts of load very specific circumstances need to occur. These include specific and accurate sling lengths, lug positions and position of centre of gravity. Only when all these factors are exactly correct can we achieve close to load equalisation. This is almost always unachievable in the real world.

As it is practically impossible to achieve equalisation of slings we have developed rules for rigging that are practically embodied in our Australian Standards. In the first instance factors of safety have been applied to the working load limits of rigging components to allow for minor errors in sling length, lug position, centre of gravity, loads and other unknowns, These discrepancies will detract from load equalisation in the slings and promote some degree of change in load sharing between them. These factors of safety reduce the risks of unknowingly overloading slings due to the above discrepancies which can often be very difficult to quantify. In the second instance rules have been developed which take into account how an item is rigged to be lifted. These rules cover such things as applying further factors for rigging arrangements such as basketing a load, choking a load, rules for four legged slings etc. All these rules and factors of safety presented in our standards help make a very safe and low risk system for designing a lift, however the standard does not discuss the reasons why these methods are adopted and does not give insight into the behaviour of other common rigging arrangements.

In light of the above this report win investigate the load sharing characteristics of several rigging arrangements designed to lift a symmetrical load from four lifting points using a four legged sling.

Each arrangement was setup and lifted using equal leg length slings and then relifted with unequal leg length slings. The load in each leg for each lift was recorded. From this data we can see the sensitivity to load sharing-vs .. ~i'ianges in leg re~gths for each method. We will also describe indicators if present for each method which can be used to gauge if a good degree of load sharing is occurring.

Actual Loads in each sling leg are presented in a table at the back of this report. Percentages of total sling load for each sling are also recorded in this report.

Option A - 4 Leg Chain Sling

Option A - Four legged chain sling suspended from a single point

This is the classic Four Legged Sling presented in the Australian Standards which must be designed based on two legs taking the load. If everything was perfectly setup we would expect 25% of total sling loads in each sling.

When setup and lifted with equal leg slings the percentage loads were:

Heaviest Loaded Sling: 31 %

Lightest Loaded Sling;-20% ",-- _,.--;.

Even when ideally setup a reasonable discrepancy in sling loads exists.

When setup and lifted with one leg shortened by one chain link the percentage loads were:

Heaviest Loaded Sling: 47% Lightest Loaded Sling: 4%

Option B-2 x 2 Chain Sling with a Spreader

This type of arrangement is not discussed in the Australian Standards and its load sharing properties is sometimes queried by customers. If everything was perfectly setup we would expect 25% of total sling loads in each sling.

When setup and lifted with equal.leg slings the percentage loads were:

Heaviest Loaded Sling: 26.5% Lightest Loaded Sling: 24%

This is very dose to ideal load sharing.

When setup and lifted with one leg shortened by one chain link the percentage loads were:

Heaviest Loaded Sling: 29.5% Lightest Loaded Sling: 22%

A moderately small shift in load sharing occurs for a minor discrepancy in length. When setup and lifted with one leg shortened by five chain links the percentage loads were:

Heaviest Loaded Sling: 42% Lightest Loaded Sling: 9%

A major shift in load sharing occurs for a major discrepancy in length.

This demonstrates that this arrangement does not have the extreme change in load sharing as for Option A.

Visually to the observer each test looked different and visual clues to the extent of load sharing could be easily recognised and assessed. When load sharing was optimum the spreader beam was positioned such that its end lugs were equally spaced between the two lugs on the load below. As the sling lengths changed and load sharing degraded the spreader would position itself so that its end lugs moved closer to one of the two lugs below it. The beam would be skewed across the load and the slings connecting the closer lugs would take an increasing percentage of the load the more skewed the beam became.

This gradual change in load sharing and clearly visual clue is due to the separation of the two sets of two legged slings being separated by the spreader beam length. (A similar situation would occur for a single point top suspended lifting beam separating the slings).

Option C - 2 x 2 Chain sling with a 2 leg Stinger

This type of arrangement is not discussed in the Australian Standards and its load sharing properties are not widely understood. If everything was perfectly setup we would expect 25% of total sling loads in each sling.

When setup and lifted with equal leg slings the percentage loads were:

Heaviest Loaded Sling: 27% Lightest Loaded Sling: 24%

This is very close to ideal load sharing.

When setup and lifted with one leg shortened by one chain link the percentage loads were:

Heaviest Loaded Sling: 34% Lightest Loaded Sling: 17%

A moderate shift in load sharing occurs for a minor discrepancy in length.

When setup and lifted with one leg shortened by five chain links the percentage loads were:

Heaviest Loaded Sling: 50% Lightest Loaded Sling: 1 %

An Extreme shift in load sharing occurs for a major discrepancy in length.

This demonstrates that this arrangement does not have the extreme change in load sharing as for Option A but is somewhat worse than Option B.

Visually to the observer each test looked somewhat different and visual clues to the extent ofload sharing could be recognised and assessed. These clues are not as obvious as in Option B. When load sharing was optimum the top suspension points of the 2 x 2 legged slings were positioned such that they were equally spaced between the two lugs on the load below. As the sling lengths changed and load sharing degraded these points would position themselves closer to one of the two lugs below them. The line between these two top suspension points would be skewed across the load and the slings connecting the closer lugs would take an increasing percentage of the load the more skewed the line became.

This moderate change in load sharing and visual clue is due to the separation of the two sets of two legged slings being separated by the use of the two legged stinger above. This separation and action is the same principle as for Option B but the change in load sharing is more abrupt because the separation length is less.

Option D - 2 x 2 Chain sling with a Rams Horn Hook

This type of arrangement is not specifically discussed in the Australian Standards and some customers have suggested it to be a device to aid in load sharing. If everything was perfectly setup we would expect 25% of total sling loads in each sling.

When setup and lifted with eqael Ieg slings the percentage loads were:

Heaviest Loaded Sling: 26% Lightest Loaded Sling: 24%

This is very close to ideal load sharing.

When setup and lifted with one leg shortened by one chain link the percentage loads were:

Heaviest Loaded Sling: 40% Lightest Loaded Sling: 10.5%

A major shift in load sharing occurs for a minor discrepancy in length.

This demonstrates that this arrangement does have a major change in load sharing but to a lesser degree than Option A but is considerably worse than Option B & C.

Visually to the observer each test looked slightly different and small visual clues to the extent of load sharing could be somewhat recognised and assessed. When load sharing was optimum the Rams Hom Hook was positioned such that its tips were equally spaced between the two lugs on the load below. As the sling lengths changed and load sharing degraded the hook would position itself so that its tips moved closer to one of the two lugs below it. The hook would be skewed across the load and the slings connecting the closer lugs would take an increasing percentage of the load the more skewed the hook became.

This visual clue was much more difficult to assess than for Option B & C.

This major change in load sharing and difficult visual clue is due to the separation of the two sets of two legged slings being separated by the use of the Rams Hom Hook. This separation and action is the same principle as for Option B & C but the change in load sharing is much more abrupt because the separation length is very much less.

ltal ~

Option E - 1 x 2 Chain sling with a Wire Rope Assembly and Snatch Block

This type of arrangement is not discussed in the Australian Standards and is rarely used. This arrangement gives excellent load sharing properties. If everything was perfectly setup we would expect 25% of total sling loads in each sling.

When setup and lifted with equal leg slings the percentage loads were:

Heaviest Loaded Sling: 26% Lightest Loaded Sling: 23.5%

This is very close to ideal load sharing.

When setup and lifted with one leg shortened by three chain link the percentage loads were:

Heaviest Loaded Sling: 26.5% Lightest Loaded Sling: 22%

A minor shift in load sharing occurs for a moderate discrepancy in length.

This demonstrates that this arrangement has a minor change in load sharing for a moderate change in sling lengths and is thus a good load sharing device.

The two fixed chain slings control the position of the load while the wire rope sling and pulley block allow for slight length adjustment to give good load sharing. The sling lengths in practise can not have discrepancies in length that are too large as the load will tilt too much as the load sharing process takes place.

10

Load Load Load Load
Cell Cell Cell Cell
Loading Method (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg)
1 2 3 4
Option A
4 Leg Sling equal lengths 258 398 271 367
4 Leg Sling 1 leg different length by I link 605 52 61 576

Option B
Spreader with equal lengths 334 308 301 307
Spreader with 1 leg different length by I link 370 272 338 271
Spreader with 1 leg different length by 5 links 526 1 11 494 110

Option C
Stinger with equal lengths 345 304 313 303
Stinger with 1 leg different length by 1 link 430 218 398 217
Stinger with 1 leg different length by 5 links 634 14 602 8

Option D
Rams Hom Hook with equal lengths 315 306 324 333
Rams Hom Hook with 1 leg different length by 1 link 136 481 145 511

Option E I
Snatch Block with equal lengths 334 325 305 330
Snatch Block with I leg different length by 3 links 340 326 285 343 Summary

To rate these options in terms of their ability to load share from best to worse the following applies:

Option E - Best Option B Option C Option D

Option A - Worse

In terms of using these slings to obtain optimum load sharing Options E, B & possibly C could be considered as practical load sharing devices.

Ifusing these as load sharing devices it still requires the rigger to set the rigging as close/a'S possible to the ideal configuration and use the visual clues-just before lifting off the ground to assess the accuracy of his rigging.

I I

Balancing Loads

An unstable load can include the following:

1) A load with a high centre of gravity such as where the centre of gravity of the load is above the attachment points of the slings.

2) A load which can shift its centre of gravity such as a fluid container.

3) A load rigged in a manner which allows the centre of gravity to move away from directly under the top suspension point. (A stable load will always have the centre of gravity move toward a position directly under the top suspension point).

Common situations where an unstable load may exist are:

1) Lifting palletised loads with pallet bars andslings

2) Lifting tanks from the base containing fluid (especially if only partly full)

An unstable load may not seem very apparent and caution and extra advice is warranted.

A demonstration was performed showing the differences in rigging a fluid container using pallet bars showing the enormous difference between a stable balanced load and an unbalanced unstable load.

13