Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Review of Criteria Concerning Design PDF
A Review of Criteria Concerning Design PDF
HSE
HSE BOOKS
or by e-mail to hmsolicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
ii
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges with gratitude the assistance from the following in the production of
this review:
The National Engineering Laboratory for permission to review and document various
archived film material for research purposes;
The Wright Image Company for the production of DVD copies of the above material;
Paul Jones of the HSE for retrieving accident data from the HSEs FOD database.
And in addition, the author acknowledges with thanks the assistance from the following
manufacturers for the supply of information:
Latchways plc
Proteq Ltd
Spanset Ltd
Tractel Ltd
iii
iv
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ix
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
PURPOSE
1.2
BACKGROUND
1.3
RESEARCH
METHOD
1.3.1
Literature search and review
1.3.2
Survey of UK manufacturers and suppliers
1.3.3
HSE FOD Database
1.3.4
Review of archived film material
4
4
5
6
1.4
DEFINITIONS
1.4.1
Permanently-installed HLL
1.4.2
Temporarily-installed HLL
1.4.3
Single-span HLL
1.4.4
Multi-span HLL
1.4.5
Span
1.4.6
Sub-span
1.4.7
Travelling device
1.4.8
Interconnecting fall-arrest equipment
1.4.9
Energy-absorbing lanyard
1.4.10
In-line energy absorber
1.4.11
Free fall
1.4.12
V deflection
1.4.13
Deflection angle
1.4.14
Load ratio
1.4.15
System safety factor
1.4.16
Wire/rope construction
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
11
2.1
BASIC
FAS
11
2.2
13
2.
CONTENTS
3.
LITERATURE REVIEW
...
21
3.1
AMERICAN RESEARCH
21
3.2
FRENCH RESEARCH
3.2.1
Static analysis
3.2.2
Static testing to destruction
22
22
23
3.3
CANADIAN RESEARCH
3.3.1
Ontario Hydro
3.3.2
Canadian steel erection industry
3.3.3
Retractable arresters
24
24
29
31
3.4
AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH
3.4.1
Initial research
3.4.2
Further research
3.4.3
Points worth noting from further testing
3.4.4
Long single-span systems with multiple workers
32
32
34
37
41
3.5
UNITED KINGDOM RESEARCH
3.5.1
Drop-tests involving multiple-dummy releases
3.5.2
Drop-tests: simultaneous and staggered double-dummy releases
3.5.3
Static tests to destruction
3.5.4
Research and development
3.5.5
Design and performance details
3.5.6
Single-spans versus multi-span HLLs
3.5.7
Free space requirement
44
44
46
48
50
55
56
58
3.6
GERMAN RESEARCH
60
3.7
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
3.7.1
United Kingdom Legislation
3.7.2
American Legislation
3.7.3
Official guidance
3.7.4
British standards
3.7.5
British standard BS EN 365
3.7.6
British standard BS EN 795
3.7.7
British standard BS 7883
3.7.8
American national standard ANSI A10.14
3.7.9
Canadian national standards
3.7.10
Australian / New Zealand standard AS/NZS 1891.2
62
62
65
67
70
70
73
74
75
76
77
3.8
78
vi
ACCIDENT DATA
CONTENTS
4.
4.1
GENERAL
4.2
79
80
81
4.3
INSTALLATION AND DESIGN APPROACH
4.3.1
Computer analysis
4.3.2
Graphical and tabular approaches
4.3.3
Modelling multiple-fall scenarios
4.3.4
Controlling design changes
82
82
84
84
85
4.4
85
4.5
PRODUCT DESIGN
4.5.1
Terminations
86
86
4.6
INSTALLATION AND USE
4.6.1
Attaching to structure
4.6.2
Multiple use situations
4.6.3
Tensioning
4.6.4
Attachment of fall-arrest equipment
87
87
88
88
89
4.7
RESCUE
4.8
90
APPLICATIONS
91
4.9
TRAINING
91
4.10
FALL ACCIDENTS
91
4.11
STANDARDS
92
4.12
PRODUCT ABUSE
92
92
92
93
93
4.13.2
Restraint systems
4.13.3
Fall-arrest systems
vii
CONTENTS
5.
CONCLUSIONS
97
5.1
97
5.2
KEY FACTORS IN REGARD TO SELECTION
5.2.1
General considerations
5.2.2
Product considerations
...103
...103
...104
5.3
KEY FACTORS IN REGARD TO INSTALLATION AND USE
5.3.1
Fundamental considerations
5.3.2
Product considerations
.. 106
.. 106
.. 110
5.4
KEY FACTORS IN REGARD TO MAINTENANCE
5.4.1
General considerations
5.4.2
Fundamental considerations
. 112
. 112
. 112
5.5
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NON-PROPRIETARY INSTALLATIONS
5.5.1
General considerations
5.5.2
Specific considerations
. 113
. 113
. 114
5.6
. 117
5.7
. 118
6.
R
EFERENCES
. 119
7.
. 123
...
viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There is a general lack of understanding of the criteria involved in the design, installation and
control of fall-arresting systems (FAS) based on temporary-installed horizontal lifelines (HLL),
particularly by those who have to select and install these systems at the workplace. This applies
to organisations who either choose proprietary systems from fall-arrest manufacturers or those
who take it on themselves to fabricate their own designs.
To look at, temporary-installed HLLs are very simple. But in terms of the fall-arresting process,
they are very complex. Consequently, the design and installation of temporary-installed HLLs is
not just a matter of stringing up some randomly chosen rope in an improvised manner, and in
the process relying on a good degree of guesswork. HLLs are engineered systems and require
engineering disciplines and approaches in order to ensure that they will perform as intended.
To address this need, approximately 60 articles, including research papers, legislation, official
guidance, standards and various technical literature from National, European and International
sources were studied, for the purposes of:
Providing a greater understanding into how these FAS are designed, how they work and
how they are controlled
Identifying the key factors that organisations need to address when selecting, installing,
using and maintaining these types of FAS
Providing recommendations for the training of personnel who are expected to install
these types of FAS
Apart from the information drawn from the results of the literature review, a number of UK
manufacturers were either contacted or visited, in order to learn from their approach and to
understand the issues as they saw them in the market place. In addition the HSE FOD accident
database was interrogated, and a review was undertaken of archived research film material, held
at the National Engineering Laboratory. The author also utilised his own experience in the
design and computational analysis of HLL based FAS, and as the current Convenor of CEN/TC
160 WG1, the Euro-standards committee responsible for the standard BS EN 795.
The results of this research have been presented in this report. Various issues are examined,
including:
The large number of parameters which affect the fall-arrest performance of a
temporary-installed HLL and how changing these parameters can change performance
and risk
ix
In the event of a fall occurring, the need to be able to determine the arrest force that a
worker could experience, the distance that the worker could fall through, the loads that
could be generated in the FAS, and the loads transmitted to the end-anchors, which
typically are a magnification of the arrest force
The need to be able to apply the above performance information to ensure safe
installation
The importance of dynamic and static testing approaches, and interaction and
compatibility issues between HLLs and other fall-arrest equipment that may be attached
Fall-arrest performance of HLLs when the fall of two or more attached workers is
simulated by test, either by simultaneously releasing the test surrogates, (test weights or
dummies), or by releasing at staggered time intervals
Users of temporary-installed HLLs are likely to be the installers, i.e. temporary-installed
HLLs are user-installed like most other kinds of FAS, e.g. FAS based on energyabsorbing lanyards or retractable arresters. However, the installation of temporaryinstalled HLLs have more exacting requirements, and performance and safety is
correspondingly affected by error or negligence to a greater extent than with other
types.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this research was to:
Gather together and review technical information on temporarily-installed horizontal
lifelines (HLL), in order to provide a greater understanding into how these fall-arresting
systems (FAS) are designed, how they work and how they are controlled.
The results of this review can be found within Sections 2, 3 and 4 of this report. Key
factors concerning design and performance can be found in clause 5.1.
Identify the key factors that organisations who use temporarily-installed HLLs need to
address when selecting, installing, using and maintaining these types of FAS.
This information can be found in clauses 5.2 to 5.4.
Provide recommendations for those organisations who from time to time consider the
fabrication and erection of their own temporarily-installed HLLs in the workplace, (i.e.
not proprietary temporarily-installed HLLs that are marketed by safety equipment
suppliers).
This information can be found in Clause 5.5.
Provide recommendations for the training of personnel who are expected to install
temporarily-installed HLLs.
This information can be found Clause 5.6.
Provide information which could be put into HSE guidance format.
The information contained within Section 5 could be used as a basis for HSE
guidance.
1.2 BACKGROUND
Workers in the UK have been protecting themselves from the harmful effects of falling from a
height by using FAS over a number of decades - the state of the art in the late 1950s is
described in Shand (1960), and the UKs first fall-arrest standard was published as BS 1397
(1947).
FAS work by arresting the fall of a worker by stopping it soon after it starts, i.e. the total falling
distance is limited at the onset.
Over the course of time, a requirement emerged at the workplace for a FAS which would
provide fall protection whilst moving over a considerable distance in the horizontal plane.
Companies requiring this protection adopted aerial ropeway technology, whereby a horizontal
cable was temporarily suspended between the extremes of travel at the workplace, and was
tensioned so that it adopted an approximate horizontal attitude. A lanyard and safety harness
could then be attached. The idea was that in a fall, a worker would be arrested, (Figure 3), in a
similar manner to the way in which an aircraft catches the arrester wire when landing onboard
an aircraft carrier, Fuller et al (1980).
These horizontal cables were fabrications made to suit the workplace. Very little if any
engineering analysis or testing was usually performed in order to ascertain if the cable could
stop a man from falling. The perceived simplicity of the cable belied the complexity of the fallarresting process. Experimental testing showed that in some cases such a cable could have
failed, (which would have caused a fall to the ground), or the amount of cable stretch would not
have prevented an impact with the ground.
These dangers continue to threaten in present times because of the lack of available information
and understanding in the market place of these visually simple yet inherently complex FAS.
Safety equipment manufacturers developed more sophisticated, permanently-installed versions
of the above, in doing so coining the name horizontal lifeline (HLL). Specialist installation
companies are trained and authorised to install various configurations of these HLLs, because
each has to be tailor-made to suit the structure to which it will be attached. Engineering analysis
and testing is performed, because it is known that the factors which affect the arrest
performance and strength requirements of the HLL, and its anchors, vary from installation to
installation. The factors are significant and numerous, such as: overall span, cable type, cable
pre-tension, numbers of intermediate support anchors, where the fall occurs on the HLL, the
free fall distance, bending the cable around corners, more than one worker falling
simultaneously or near-simultaneously, and the type of fall-arrest equipment attaching the
worker to the HLL.
Safety equipment manufacturers modified this technology in the supply of temporarily-installed
HLLs, Figure 1. These are HLLs which facilitate temporary installation and subsequent removal
at the workplace. The idea is that any trained personnel at the workplace would be able to install
a temporary HLL in accordance with installation instructions, which contain procedures to
control the fall-arrest performance and specify strength requirements of anchoring structure.
However it has not stopped the relatively easy fabrication and installation of temporary HLLs,
without engineering analysis, by companies who wish to avail themselves of this approach.
Temporarily-installed
HLL
Energy-absorbing
lanyard
At the present time there is a lack of understanding of the technical criteria involved in the
installation of temporarily-installed HLL, particularly by those who have to select and install
these FAS at the workplace. There are also questions in regard to the control of these FAS, in
particular: What are the selection criteria and what systems are available? What degree of
research has been conducted? What is the nature of training and who supplies it? What
maintenance is conducted? The lack of understanding has been caused by factors amongst
which include: the perceived simplicity of HLL; the lack of written information, and the
difficulty in obtaining that which is available; and the decline in numbers and expertise of
technical personnel within the fall-arrest industry.
A computerised search was undertaken for documents with the assistance of the British Library
Research Service, which utilised the DIALOG and GEM on-line host services. The following
key words were used:
horizontal lifeline
static wire
running line
horizontal line
arrester cable
aerial ropeway
NASA 1 and 95 - National Aeronautics and Space Administration databases which hold
approximately 250,000 references each.
Articles were also searched for using the names: Arteau J., Sulowski A. C. and Dayawansa P. H.
as these were known authors in the research field.
Relevant articles were obtained from the British Library Document Supply Centre, which has
access to at least 150 million books, journals, reports and theses, covering almost every subject
in every language.
Other articles were retrieved from Safety Squareds own library holdings, which included
standards, legislation, official guidance, accident statistics and research papers.
1.3.2
This reviewed the marketing, technical, installation and training approach adopted by
manufacturers / suppliers.
Information was gathered mainly by way of internet and telephonic enquiry. The more notable
suppliers were visited for the purpose of technical discussion and interview. Further details can
be found in Section 4.
1.3.3
In order to try and supplement accident evidence obtained from elsewhere, permission was
obtained to study cases recorded in the HSE Field Operations Directorate (FOD) database. The
search used the keywords: LIFELINES FALL-ARREST and LANYARDS. The search
revealed that 270 accidents contained one or more of the keywords, occurring between April
2001 - June 2003.
1.3.4
In the course of the research, a number of cine films, U-matic tapes and video tapes were
discovered in the National Engineering Laboratory (NEL) archives, which, from titles, were felt
to be of importance to present and future research. With permission from the NEL, a review of
the material was made, and copies were transferred onto DVD format for the purposes of HSE
research. The vast majority of this material relates to UK fall-arrest research dating back to the
1970s, and a list giving brief details of each item can be found in the appendix.
1.4 DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this report the following terms and definitions are used, together with the
corresponding SI units of measurement:
1.4.1 Permanently-installed HLL
A HLL which once installed, is not intended to be removed or dismantled in the foreseeable
future. These HLLs are usually of the multi-span type.
1.4.2 Temporarily-installed HLL
A HLL which is repeatedly installed, used, removed after use, transported and then reinstalled,
used, and the cycle continued. These HLLs are usually of the single-span type.
1.4.3 Single-span HLL
A HLL with no intermediate anchors.
1.4.4 Multi-span HLL
A HLL with one or more intermediate anchors.
1.4.5 Span
The overall length of the HLL, measured from one end-anchor to the other.
1.4.6 Sub-span
The distance between two adjacent intermediate anchors in a multi-span HLL.
1.4.7 Travelling device
A device which attaches to and slides along a HLL, and to which a worker connects an energy
absorbing lanyard or other interconnecting fall-arrest equipment.
1.4.8 Interconnecting fall-arrest equipment
Fall-arrest equipment which connects a workers full body harness to the travelling device.
1.4.9 Energy absorbing lanyard
A lanyard with an integral energy or shock absorber.
System safety factor = the highest force that can be sustained before system failure
the maximum arrest force
both forces being applied in a direction perpendicular to the HLL, and both being expressed in
the same unit of measurement
(i)
(ii)
7x7
HLL
End anchor
Energy-absorbing
lanyard
Deflection angle
V Deflection
10
Once in the full body safety harness, and once all the connections are made to the anchor
device, the worker and workplace structure in effect become integral parts of the FAS.
Connectors
Anchor device
11
If a fall occurs, (Figure 5), the worker is arrested by virtue of being connected to the workplace
structure, i.e. the structure provides resistance to the downward motion of the fall. At such a
stage in a fall, the energy absorbing lanyard becomes taut, and the sudden resistance exerted by
the structure causes the worker to decelerate abruptly, principally at a rate which is controlled
by the energy absorbing qualities of the lanyard and its design. In Figure 5 the energy
absorption is depicted by the tearing apart of a special tear web strip.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Key
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Figure 5 Typical sequence of events that occurs when a worker falls whilst using a
FAS based on an energy-absorbing lanyard
Fixed single-point anchor devices such as the eyebolt shown in Figure 4 are the most simplest in
the family of anchor devices, but their use severely restricts the range of movement of the user,
this being controlled by the position of the anchor device and the length of the energy-absorbing
lanyard. This arrangement also leads to the danger of striking adjacent objects through
pendulum or swing falls when users move to an extreme horizontal position from the anchor
device. Alternatively, HLLs provide a continuous anchor for an energy-absorbing lanyard. As
Ellis (1993) puts it: HLLs are designed to help minimise the potential for dangerous pendulumlike swing falls that can result from moving laterally away from a fixed anchor point. Swing
falls can generate the same forces as falling through the same distance vertically, but with the
additional hazard of striking an obstruction.
12
the lifeline itself, which may either be cable, rope or webbing based
two fixed end-anchor points on structure from which the HLL is suspended
anchor connections, which connect the end-anchors to the HLL, e.g. a strop
a travelling device, which attaches to the HLL, and in turn provides a point for
interconnecting fall-arrest equipment, such as an energy-absorbing lanyard
connectors, which join the travelling device and harness to the interconnecting fallarrest equipment
A temporarily-installed HLL is typically installed to stretch across any straight line horizontal
access route and its length can be adjusted to suit the workplace. It can be used to bridge and
therefore provide fall protection across gaps which have no intermediate supporting structure,
and hence are a solution in the steel erection industry.
Travelling devices are designed to engage onto and slide along the HLL. They may be simple
karabiner type connectors or other types of fitting, but are designed to prevent inadvertent
disengagement from the lifeline. They also provide a means for interconnecting an energyabsorbing lanyard or other fall-arrest equipment between the HLL and harness. This
interconnection governs how far a worker may move away from the HLL.
During use, the travelling device is pulled along the HLL in response to the workers
movement. Providing that the interconnecting fall-arrest equipment is not too long, the
travelling device will remain in close proximity to the worker, ensuring that in the event of a
fall, any swinging action is minimised.
In some cases if structure is available, intermediate anchors can be utilised. These components
support the HLL at pre-set intervals and can provide important fall-arrest performance
improvements over single-span configurations. In such cases a special travelling device is
normally required, which can pass through the intermediate anchor component without the need
for the worker to disconnect from the HLL. The alternative is to disconnect before reaching the
intermediate anchor, and then to reconnect on the opposite side. This is a dangerous practice as
the worker is exposed to falling during this operation, and is not advised.
13
HLL
Energy-absorbing
lanyard
Anchor connection
Intermediate anchor
Figure 7 FAS based on a temporarily-installed HLL with intermediate anchor and inline energy absorber
14
An alternative is to have two lanyards or a lanyard with two tails. This allows the worker to
remain attached by one connection before the intermediate anchor, whilst a second connection is
made at the opposite side of the anchor. When this upstream connection is made the
downstream connection can be broken. This is a manual technique that requires self-discipline,
whereas the special travelling device is automatic and is to be preferred.
If a fall occurs, a complex sequence of events occur, which can be followed by studying the
sequences in Figure 8. Although 5 distinct views are shown, each is only a snapshot in time and
the whole event may take less than a second from start to finish. So although the energyabsorbing lanyard is shown extending in view (iv), it may have already begun to operate in view
(iii).
15
Figure 8 Typical sequence of events that occurs when a worker falls whilst attached to
a FAS based on a temporarily-installed HLL: sequences (i) (iii)
16
Figure 8 continued Typical sequence of events that occurs when a worker falls whilst
attached to a FAS based on a temporarily-installed HLL: sequences (iv) & (v)
17
Design criteria that have to be considered when designing a single-span HLL under fall-arrest
conditions, include:
the magnitude of forces acting on end-anchors versus the strength of the structure
the magnitude of forces acting in the system versus the strength of the system
the total amount of vertical fall distance versus free space underneath worker before fall
occurs
the total amount of horizontal displacement versus the amount of obstruction free space
in the horizontal plane
There are several parameters which affect the performance of a FAS based on a HLL. These
parameters are most comprehensively listed and schematically shown in Figure 9 from Sulowski
and Miura (1983). A change to any single parameter affects the overall performance, and this is
why HLL performance is so complex. Factors include:
Elastic properties of the HLL, interconnecting fall-arrest equipment, (whether energyabsorbing lanyard, or other) and harness
Amount of free fall (where the fall starts in relation to the level of the HLL)
Number of workers who fall, and whether they fall simultaneously or at staggered
intervals (i.e. with an appreciable time difference)
18
Key:
MAL = maximum anchor load
MAF = maximum arrest force
TFD = total fall distance
19
20
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
A number of documents were found during the literature search which were identified as being
relevant and are reviewed here. However no attempt has been made to fully report on the
contents of these documents, since to do so would have detracted from the main purpose of the
present research; a selective reporting approach has therefore been taken, based on the relevancy
of the material. Full reference details are given of all the documents that were studied, (see
Section 6), and the reader is encouraged to obtain these if further reading on the subject is
desired.
Whereas some of the results reviewed apply to permanently-installed HLLs, they have been
included in the body of the report because the principles can also be applied to the temporarilyinstalled versions. Indeed, most of the development work and thinking applied to the temporary
versions has been adopted from work previously done to bring the permanent versions to
market.
3.1 AMERICAN RESEARCH
A relative early statement on single-span HLL performance can be found in Steinburg (1977), in
which a simple static analysis is carried out. By this, Steinburg determines that the greatest load
in the HLL (and hence on the end-anchors) occurs when the angle of deflection is small, and
when the impact occurs in the middle of the span, (Figure 10). This relationship is expressed in
terms of the ratio of tension generated in the HLL (T1) to that applied in the connecting lanyard
(T) for various angles, see Table 1.
Deflection angle
T1
21
Table 1
Ratio of tension in HLL to tension in lanyard after Steinburg (1977)
Deflection angle ()
Ratio T1 : T
14.33
5.74
10
2.87
15
1.93
30
1.00
45
0.71
60
0.58
75
0.52
80
0.51
85
0.50
Note: load applied at mid-span
Further, in Steinberg 1977, (one purpose of which was to recommend criteria for a OSHA
performance standard that was in the course of being drafted), mention is made of situations
when HLLs will be used by two or more persons simultaneously. In this case, Steinberg argues,
that the minimum strength values should be multiplied by the number of users, taking into
account the geometrical factors involved with HLLs.
3.2 FRENCH RESEARCH
3.2.1 Static analysis
In Caisse Nationale de LAssurance Maladie Note technique No 167 (1980), (translated as
National State Health Insurance Office Technical Note No 167), the efficiency of a safety
harness is described by reference to the limited range of movement obtained when connected
via a lanyard to a fixed anchor point. This is compared to the safe and increased range of
movement gained when attaching the same lanyard to a cable that has been stretched between
two points.
The note gives information about the choice and fastening of the cable. It makes reference to
use of a 6 x 37 construction steel cable with fibre core of 13.2 mm and 15.4 mm diameter and a
requirement that end-anchors should be able to sustain 40 kN. The maximum arrest force
permitted to be experienced by the user is stated to be 6.0 kN.
There then follows a mathematical formula which expresses the relationship between the span
(single), the weight of the cable, its stiffness (assumed to be constant), initial tension, and
tension when a load of 6 kN is applied perpendicular to the line. The formula is a static analysis
only, i.e. it takes no account of the motion or energy gained during a fall-arrest event. A series
of graphs are provided based on the formula to give a ready reckoner into how a system may
behave. The first shows end-anchor loads verses system span when a 6 kN static load is applied
for a range of initial tensions. The second shows initial sag and V deflection verses system
span when a 6 kN static load is applied for a range of initial tensions. The graphs are repeated
for the different cable sizes.
22
It is worth noting that this static analysis predicts that a 6 kN mid-span load generates a 30 kN
end anchor load, for a 10 m span of 13.2 mm diameter cable at an initial tension of 2 kN, and
produces a V deflection of 0.5 m.
Technical Note No. 167 makes the vital point that since loads at the end-anchors can be very
high, it is important that some verification is made of their ability to sustain them, as well as the
structure to which they are installed to. Also that safety factors need to be applied to both anchor
and structure to ensure that there is a sufficient reserve of strength should loads be applied of the
magnitudes predicted.
Mention is also made that the manufacture of the anchor point, the fastening of the cable to the
anchor, and the tensioning of the HLL all require meticulous execution and a careful
inspection before initial use. The note goes on to recommend that the installed HLL should be
tested by carrying out a fall simulation.
3.2.2 Static testing to destruction
In CEBTP (1984) a series of static tests are described on a 9-metre long length of HLL, made
from 8 mm diameter stainless steel cable of 7 x 7 construction. It was installed with two
intermediate supports as to give a configuration of 3 x 3 m sub-spans. In the tests, an increasing
load was applied slowly, (as opposed to rapidly in drop-testing), and perpendicular to the HLL
at the mid-point of the middle sub-span (i.e. in the direction in which a fall-arrest loading would
be applied). A load cell was inserted at one of the end-anchors. The load was gradually
increased until failure occurred.
In one test the cable failed completely, when the measured end-anchor load was 25 kN.
Reconstruction of the cable showed that the failure had occurred where the cable had beared on
one of the intermediate anchor supports, Figure 11. In order to check that the minimum strength
of the cable was correct for that type of cable, and to ensure that a defective cable had not been
used for test, an undamaged section was cut from the test specimen and was tested to
destruction in tension. Failure occurred at 37.3 kN, which was comparable to the minimum
breaking strength of 38 kN. This proved that the cable was not defective, but that the cablesupport bracket interface had reduced the strength of the cable by a factor of 35%. This was
due to the cable reeving over a relatively abrupt edge, with little area of contact, causing a
stress concentration.
Cable failure at
intermediate bracket
HLL rope
Travelling device
Anchor
Applied loading
23
24
Table 2
Configurations and variations chosen for Ontario-Hydro research testing
after Sulowski & Miura (1983)
Configuration-parameter
Variations
HLL rope
(six types)
synthetic rope
Interconnecting equipment
(six types)
between HLL and drop weight
HLL span
(four lengths)
3 m, 10 m, 30 m, and 50 m
25
without energy
absorption
with energy
absorption
Test findings
Sulowski and Miura (1983) report the following findings on tests which were conducted on
single-span HLLs:
Considering the span parameter, it was observed that greater spans produced lower
forces at the end-anchors and lower fall-arrest forces, but greater falling distances. The
maximum end-anchor load seemed to occur somewhere between the 3 and 10 m size.
Surprisingly, the end-anchor loadings for the 3 m spans were lower than those for the 10
m spans. It was suspected that anchor stiffness, rope termination method and anchoring
structure stiffness were factors more pronounced in shorter span situations.
As initial tension in the HLL was increased:
o higher end-anchor loads were produced (upper view of Figure 12)
o greater falling distances were produced (lower view of Figure 12)
o lower arrest forces were produced (middle view of Figure 12)
although the initial tension did not seem to affect performance to such an extent as
originally envisaged, particularly in a short span.
As expected, longer free fall distances produced higher end anchor loads, higher arrest
forces and greater falling distances.
The HLLs using wire rope produced higher forces at the end-anchor, higher fall-arrest
forces, and shorter falling distances. The HLLs using synthetic rope produced lower
forces at the end-anchor, lower fall-arrest forces, but greater falling distances.
Among the interconnecting fall-arrest equipment tested, the energy-absorbing lanyards
produced the lowest fall-arrest forces.
Regarding the anchoring methods, the Flemish eye splices produced slightly higher
forces at the end-anchor, higher fall-arrest forces, and shorter falling distances than the
HLLs with clipped eyes. When the HLL rope was looped around the end supporting
columns and secured with Crosby clips, they produced lower forces at the end-anchor,
but higher fall-arrest forces and greater falling distances than the HLLs with Flemish
eyes or clipped eyes connected to eye bolts on the support columns.
The tests examining drop-test location revealed that maximum forces at the end-anchor
and maximum falling distance occurred when the mass was released at the mid-point of
the span. However, the arrest force became higher as the drop location moved closer to
the end-anchor.
In the experiments which simulated two workers falling together, the maximum forces
at the end-anchor and maximum falling distances were recorded when the two test
masses were released at the mid-point of the span. However the individual arrest force
experienced by each mass was lower than that under single mass drop conditions.
26
initial
tension
10
30
50
initial
tension
10
30
50
initial
tension
, m
Note: HLL based on 1/2 inch diameter steel rope 6 x 25 IWRC construction, clipped eyes on
each end. Interconnection equipment consisted of a 5/8 inch nylon lanyard of 1.0 m overall
length. Free fall distance 1.285 m, drop mass of 100 kg.
Figure 12 End anchor load, maximum arrest force and total fall distance verses
HLL span for various initial HLL tensions. After Sulowski & Muira (1983)
27
28
With the HLL installed, the cable sag measurement at 1.5 m from the end anchor could
be used as an indicator for the initial tension in the HLL rope. This method would need
to be studied and developed.
Further work would be needed to test other sizes and potential components that could be
incorporated into future HLLs, and for extending the capability of the computer
program.
Comment was made about the initial extension of a new HLL rope under fall loading,
which was very large1. The elongation of the rope in the first drop test is reported to
have been almost 50% more than in the third drop on the same rope.
Comment was also made that in the field of operations, HLL ropes are replaced with
new items after a fall-arrest incident, i.e. after the rope has been subject to a impact
loading. This is because of the safety critical nature of the FAS. The same stance was
taken during the testing, i.e. it was decided to replace each rope with a new one after
each test.
In assessing the performance envelope for HLL configurations, the following limits were
established:
The maximum end-anchor load permitted was 1/3 the minimum breaking strength of
the HLL rope, including a 10% safety margin; i.e. the rope would be at least 3 times
as strong as any load transmitted through it to the end-anchor.
The maximum arrest force permitted to be experienced by a worker was 8 kN2
including a 10% safety margin.
The maximum total fall distance permitted was 5.0 m including a 15% safety margin.
The third limit also enabled the establishing of a minimum clearance beneath the worker,
measured from the datum of the HLL to the nearest obstacle below. Setting of such a
clearance prevented a falling worker from colliding with an obstacle before completion of the
fall.
Protocol is mentioned by which the person on site has to amass the geometrical information,
carry out either a graphical or computer analysis, and ensure that the results obtained do not
exceed the limitations for the HLL.
3.3.2 Canadian steel erection industry
In Arteau and Lan (1992), reference is made to the introduction of HLLs in the Canadian steel
erection industry, where in 1981 steel erection workers had a daily absentee rate of 82.6 per
1000 workers.3 This was mainly due to falls from a height. A simplified means of
mathematically analysing HLLs is presented, based on static analysis alone. This neglects the
capacity of the HLL rope to dissipate energy. Results are presented graphically and it was hoped
that this would simplify design of the HLL on site. However the accuracy of such calculations is
not reported.
1
This is due to the twisting and seating of individual wires and strands when a load is applied. A rope is a complex
mechanism, consisting of wound strands which themselves consist of a number of wound wires.
2
Allowable under Canadian standards
3
The number of workers absent each working day per 1000 workers
29
In Arteau and Lan (1994) the work in Arteau and Lan (1992) is repeated, but some additional
dynamic test work is reported. This focuses on tests using posts as the end-anchoring means and
demonstrates that the degree of rigidity (or flexibility) of the end-anchor arrangement can have
an affect on performance.
The static analysis method is mentioned in Corbeil et al (1996), in that it necessitated the
production of very heavy anchor posts (in the order of 50 kg). This drove forward the idea of
more efficient posts as described in Corbeil et al (1996) which would be deformable and hence
provide energy absorption at the end-points of the HLL.
This would have the effect of lowering end anchor forces and reducing the decelerations on
workers, which is reported to be in the order of 10 g 4. Figure 13 demonstrates the concept.
Notes:
View (a) prior to fall
View (b) instant when HLL begins to deform
View (c) anchor posts deform in response to loading
Figure 13 Components and fall-arrest operation of HLL based FAS using collapsible
energy-absorbing end anchor posts. After Corbeil et al (1996)
There is no mention, but the author assumes that energy-absorbing means were not fitted in the workers lanyard
between body harness and HLL
30
Testing
Corbeil et al (1996) goes on to describe the experimental drop-test methodology, in order to
study the energy-absorbing effects of the collapsing end anchor posts. This includes,
interestingly, performance under temperatures of -40C, -25C, and +25C, since ambient
temperature affects the impact properties of steel.
Also worthy of note is that different steel test masses were used to represent different sizes of
workers. These were: (i) 80 kg mass, representing a workers weight in the 50th percentile5,
and (ii) 100 kg mass, representing a workers weight in the 95th percentile6. A single 200 kg
mass was used to simulate two workers falling simultaneously.
The HLL under test consisted of a 6 x 25 IWRC grade 110/120 steel wire of 12.7 mm diameter
stretched between two anchor posts 0.9 m high.
For the dynamic strength tests, which were tests to assess strength safety factors, the same type
of wire rope was used for the interconnecting lanyard, but for dynamic performance, a 3-strand
nylon lanyard of 16 mm diameter and 1.2 m length was utilised. This was chosen in order to
represent as faithfully as possible the conditions prevailing on construction sites.
Following a dynamic performance test, the residual static strength was checked by doubling the
test weight, and suspending it from the horizontal wire for 5 minutes, the period of time
corresponding to a rescue7. Corbeil et al (1996) then go on to describe another dynamic test,
which they claim reproduced a failed rescue attempt, and, from what can be discerned
from the description of this, assumes that the Rescuee8 becomes inadvertently detached from
the rescue system, falls, and impacts the HLL a second time9. The free fall for this test was 1.2
m, which subjects the energy-absorbing end-anchor posts to a second amount of rapidly
applied energy, which they had to withstand if the test was to be successful.
Only one set of results is presented which involves a drop test of 2.4 m free fall with a test mass
of 100 kg. The end-anchor posts deformed, limiting the end-anchor load to 11 kN and the load
on the mass to 5 kN.
3.3.3 Retractable arresters
In Sulowski (1991) reference is made to the use of retractable type fall arresters whilst
connected to anchors of low stiffness, (susceptible to springing, e.g. a cantilevered beam).
Concern had been expressed because of the tendency for such an anchor to spring up and
down at the point of arrest, and that the frequency and magnitude of these vibrations might
cause the locking mechanism (commonly ratchet pawls) to disengage. This would result in a
subsequent fall which would have to be arrested again. This phenomena could easily be
envisaged when connected to a HLL. The cycle of ratchet bounce might be repeated until the
amplitude of the HLL vibrations had subsided. This could create a danger where the free space
beneath a worker was at a minimum. Sulowski (1991) recommends a simple, non-instrumented
drop test in those situations where such a phenomenon is suspected.
5
50th percentile is a statistical measure and means 50% of the measured population had a mass which was less than
80kg and 50% had a mass which was more than 80 kg.
6
95th percentile is a statistical measure and means 95% of the measured population had a mass which was less than
100kg and 5% had a mass which was more than 100 kg.
7
The author assumes that this corresponds to the static weight of two persons, the rescuer and the rescuee
8
Person being rescued
9
It should be noted that there is no mention as to the method of rescue
31
That there would be sufficient friction between the HLL and the travelling device to
prevent it from sliding down the lifeline in a fall
That there would be no friction between intermediate supports and the HLL
That the stiffness of the supports and harness could be represented by linear springs
That elements of the system would not absorb energy through plastic (permanent)
deformation
As cited elsewhere, e.g. in Drabble and Brookfield (1998) and in Riches (1992a), solvable
equations cannot be obtained when modelling such complex real time dynamics as the
trajectory of a falling man being decelerated by a HLL. Dayawansa et al (1989) confirms that
the system of equations can only be solved by using an iterative solution necessitating the use
of computers.
Once the parameters that would influence the behaviour of the HLL under fall-arresting
conditions had been identified, one of the objectives became the investigation into how each of
the parameters would influence the loads within the HLL and interconnecting lanyard.
Dayawansa et al (1989) goes on to state that the fall arrest load in the connecting lanyard is
directly proportional to the deceleration felt by the person falling, and the loads in the HLL are
important from the design point of view of the whole FAS.
Test findings
In Dayawansa et al (1989) static testing of the cables was performed to determine stiffness and
strength properties. The stiffness of the cables was found to increase due to repeated loading, an
important aspect as the performance of the HLL can be significantly affected by alteration in
cable stiffness.
32
Whilst it was acknowledged that HLLs in practice have multiple sub-spans, a single span was
tested since it was felt sufficient to verify the computer program model. Both a steel block and a
dummy, each of 80 kg mass, were used in the experiments to represent a falling person.
The specification of the dummy is not described, but from the photographs in Dayawansa et al
(1989) it would seem to have been a simple humanshaped sandbag, tied at points to give
approximate arm and head shapes, (legs are not discernible from the photographs). The idea was
to use the rigid steel mass to verify the computational model, and then to compare results with
these tests using the dummy, thus enabling the energy-absorbing characteristics of the dummy
to be identified.
The following observations were made after the results of the testing were studied in
conjunction with computer analysis. These observations rely to a much greater extent on the
computer analysis than on the experimental results:
The force in the interconnecting lanyard decreased when lanyard stiffness, HLL
stiffness, free fall and mass of the person were decreased
The force in the interconnecting lanyard decreased when initial HLL tension and
intermediate span were increased
The force in the HLL decreased when lanyard stiffness, HLL stiffness, intermediate
span, free fall and mass of person were decreased
The force in the HLL decreased when the initial tension in the HLL was increased
For a given system, the forces in the HLL and interconnecting lanyard were a minimum
when the loading point was at the centre of the HLL span and at the centre of an
intermediate span. The forces increased when the eccentricity of the loading point
increased both with respect to the total span and with intermediate span.
authors note: lanyard forces recorded varied from 12.28 to 16.51 kN without an energy absorber fitted
33
34
Three test system configurations with their variants were described, see Figure 14:
Referring to Figure 14, Configuration 1 consisted of a straight line system with three sub
spans11. This configuration was the most important in the research, since it was considered to be
the most common installation in practice. Accordingly forty-eight tests were conducted on this
configuration. Variations included the investigation of three different cable diameters, namely 8,
10 and 12 mm - Dayawansa and Ralph (1997) stating that: the stiffness of the cable increases
when the diameter is increased. Cable type is reported as general purpose 6 x 24 fibre core
galvanised steel rope. Similarly it is stated that: the overall stiffness of a system increases
when the overall span is decreased. Hence two nominal spans were used to investigate that
effect, namely 36.6 m and 18.3 m. Lengths of sub-spans were also varied.
Configuration 2 consisted of a Z shaped system with two internal 90 corner angles and five
sub-spans. Twelve tests were conducted on this configuration using 10 mm diameter cable.
Configuration 3 consisted of a flattened Z shaped system with two internal 135 corner
angles. Six tests were conducted on this configuration using 10 mm diameter cable.
11
Each sub-span can be defined as the distance between adjacent letters in the three views of Figure 14
35
the use of a karabiner (made from 12 mm diameter steel bar) as the travelling device
different pre-tension of the HLL rope (0.5, 1.5 and 3.0 kN)
Table 3
Stiffness of cables After Dayawansa and Ralph (1997)
Cable
Diameter
(mm)
Test No.
Increase in Stiffness
(%)
Stiffness
(kN/mm)
First Cycle
Average
C8A
1201
2483
106.7
C8B
1372
2216
61.5
10
C10A
3094
3700
19.6
10
C10B
2521
3251
29.0
12
C12A
2614
4410
68.7
12
C12B
2533
4400
73.7
36
The increase in stiffness between the cable in a virgin state and the average was calculated as
shown in Table 3. It is interesting to note that stiffness could change by over double in the 8 mm
case and by 2/3 in the 12 mm case. The 10 mm case appears less significant. Also the assertion
that cable stiffness increases with increased diameter is not fully supported by the above
results; whilst admittedly, a doubling in stiffness between the 8 and 12 mm sizes is clear, there
is next to no difference between the 10 and 12 mm sizes. In fact in one case the 10 mm size is
stiffer. The difficulty behind this approach is that it assumes that cable stiffness is constant, but
realistically cable stiffness varies according to load in the virgin state, Riches (1997). An
example of stiffness test results shown in Dayawansa and Ralph (1997) also shows this non
linear stiffness relationship as depicted in Figure 15. As can be seen, the first slope (arrowed) is
curved and so its gradient, (the measure of stiffness), at any load is different to the next, (as
shown by the three double-lined positions).
Figure 15 Graph of load v extension (appended) after Dayawansa and Ralph (1997)
The above evidence establishes a very good reason to justify the replacement of HLLs after
being subjected to fall-arrest loadings, (apart from other safety-critical reasons). If a HLL is
left in place after sustaining a fall-arrest loading, then the stiffness of the HLL will certainly
be at a much higher level than it was when it was originally installed.
Since stiffness has a significant effect on a HLLs capability to absorb energy, and hence how
much force is transmitted to end-anchors, it follows that in the event of a second fall-arrest
loading being applied, sufficient loadings may be generated within the cable or at the end
anchors to cause system failure, resulting in a worker falling to the ground or other
substantial platform. In other words, any calculation or analysis made when the system was
originally installed, which was performed in order to assess loadings and system
performance, will no longer be valid, because any increase in the value of stiffness will
significantly increase the loadings transmitted through the system.
3.4.3 Points worth noting from further testing
End anchor loads and lanyard loads
The maximum value of load recorded at the end-anchors was 18.3 kN with a corresponding
force in the lanyard of 7.16 kN (no energy absorber fitted). This was recorded on a
Configuration 1 system, based on 10 mm diameter cable of 16.64 m overall span. Three drop
tests had been conducted on this system previously, so cable stiffness will have increased from
that when the cable was in a virgin state.
37
The test was conducted in the end sub-span of 7.0m length, near to an intermediate anchor. The
length of the chain lanyard was 1.5 m and this was set so as to allow the test mass to free fall
through a distance of 0.5 m. Maximum V deflection at first impact is given as 208 mm.
This shows that in this case the applied force in the lanyard is multiplied by a factor of
approximately 2.5 by the time it is felt at the end-anchor. This is mainly due to the fact that
the sub-span in which the fall takes place is deflected into a characteristic V shape in an
attempt to resist the downward motion of the test mass. This creates a proportionately higher
tension within the HLL which, apart from the applied load in the lanyard and other factors, is
dependent on the deflection angle.
With energy absorbing lanyards employed, the maximum value of load recorded at the endanchors was 9.6 kN, with a corresponding lanyard force of 3.8 kN. This gives an end-anchor to
applied load ratio of 2.52. This was recorded on a Configuration 1 system, based on 10 mm
diameter cable of 34.94 m overall span. Eleven drop tests had been conducted on this system
previously, so cable stiffness will have increased from that when the cable was in a virgin state.
The test was conducted in the middle sub-span of 10.0m length, at the mid-point. The length of
the chain lanyard was 1.5 m and this was set so as to allow the test mass to free fall through a
distance of 1.5 m. Maximum V deflection at first impact is given as 385 mm. Energy absorber
extension is given as 980 mm.
The end-anchor loads are reported to be lower when the position of the fall simulation was next
to an intermediate anchor. Dayawansa and Ralph (1997) suggest that this may be due to a
reduction in the effectiveness of the HLLs energy absorption capability, with the result that the
system behaves more like a lanyard which is directly connected to an intermediate anchor.
The test results also show that end-anchor loads tend to increase when the total span of the HLL
or the length of sub-spans is decreased. The latter observation is less pronounced than the first.
Intermediate anchor loads
The maximum value of load recorded at an intermediate anchor was 8.9 kN with a
corresponding lanyard load of 8.7 kN (no energy absorber fitted). This was recorded on a
Configuration 2 system, based on 10 mm diameter cable of 29.74 m overall span.
Nine drop tests had been conducted on this system previously, so cable stiffness will have
increased from that when the cable was in a virgin state. The test was conducted in an internal
sub-span of 7.0m length, near to an intermediate anchor. The length of the chain lanyard was 1.5
m and this was set so as to allow the test mass to free fall through a distance of 0.5 m.
Maximum V deflection at first impact is given as 193 mm.
Karabiner sliding
In tests where the release of test mass was next to the intermediate support, the travelling
device (karabiner) slid down the cable towards the centre of the V deflection during the
first few rebounds. In test number SL9LM59, for example, the test mass is recorded as
slipping a horizontal distance of 1700 mm in an internal sub-span of 7.0 m length.
38
39
Table 4
Comparison of drop-test results simulating the arrest of two men
by releasing two test masses at different time intervals
after Dayawansa and Ralph (1997)
V deflection (m)
End anchors
Intermediate
anchors
Lanyards
North
South
North
South
1.187
19.2
19.9
5.7
6.2
7.8
5.8
16. As above
1.224
18.8
18.9
5.4
5.8
6.5
5.5
1.25
18.5
20.1
5.8
5.8
5.7
6.9
1.14
14.0
14.3
3.6
5.1
7.5
7.5
1.164
13.4
13.2
3.3
5.8
8.8
6.8
1.108
12.9
13.7
2.4
5.7
6.6
5.1
Notes:
(i) North and South end-anchors refer to the two end-anchors of the system
(ii) North and South intermediate anchors refer to the two intermediate anchors flanking the sub-span in
which the drop-test was located
(iii) Designations A and B refer to the two arresting lanyards. 1.5 m chain lanyards were used (no
energy absorbers), set so that each of the 100 kg test masses would freefall 0.5 m upon release
(iv) Tests were conducted on Configuration 1, (10 mm diameter, 34.94 m overall span)
(v) Initial tension 0.5 kN. 4 drop tests had been conducted previously on same HLL
40
Referring to Table 4, Dayawansa and Ralph (1997) make the following points:
In Test 15, where the two test masses were released almost simultaneously12, the
maximum load recorded at the end anchor was 19.9 kN, in comparison with 13.2 kN
which was recorded when a single test mass was released in identical configuration
and conditions
When the two simulated falls are separated by a stagger of 200 300 ms, the lanyard
load experienced by the test mass which reacts against the cable first is similar to the
lanyard force obtained for a single simulated fall of the same height. However, in
considering the second mass, it has to fall further than the first before reacting
against the cable, since the cable by that time will have been pulled downwards into
the characteristic V shape, caused by the first mass. Therefore, the second mass
experiences a higher lanyard force than the first. (It should be understood that no
energy absorbers were utilised in these tests). Also at the moment of impact of the
second mass, the level of tension in the HLL may be higher due to the load induced
by the first mass.
In Test 20, where the two test masses were released within 300 ms of each other in
separate but adjacent sub-spans, comment is made that lanyard loads and end-anchor
loads are similar to those obtainable when under single test mass conditions. This is
because when viewing the load-time histories, one can see that the force being
applied by the reaction of the first mass against the cable has virtually decayed by the
time that the second mass starts to react. Although not tested, Dayawansa and Ralph
point out that if the time stagger between releases in adjacent sub-spans were
eliminated to produce the simultaneous releases of Tests 15 and 16, the end anchor
loads may show a load trend similar to the said tests.
3.4.4 Long single-span systems with multiple workers
Further work is described in Dayawansa and Ralph (1997) as: tests on long-span static line
systems. These tests were conducted on single-span HLLs of 17 m and 33 m length. HLL
material included galvanised steel, stainless steel and kernmantel rope.
Comment is made that long span HLL systems, i.e. long single-span systems, are generally
used when intermediate supports cannot be provided at the location in question. Typical
situations are described as aircraft hangars and during construction and maintenance of long
structures. The system tested was designed to span 35 m as a single-span system, and to allow
the simultaneous attachment of 4 workers.
A test frame is described, to which the HLL was attached 7 m above ground level. Six
outriggers, which could be moved along the top flange of the test frame beam, gave the
capability to drop up to 6 test masses from a height of up to 2.5 m above the level of the HLL,
either one at a time, or simultaneously.
The galvanised steel cable was 12 mm diameter of 6 x 24 fibre core construction. The stainless
steel cable was 12 mm diameter and is described as made from G304 material. The
kernmantel rope is described as being 19 mm in diameter.
12
Near or almost simultaneously is not defined. However from the load-time histories in the report the test masses
appear to have been released simultaneously, with the maximum arrest forces occurring within 25 ms of each other
41
The energy absorbing lanyards used to connect the 100 kg test masses to the HLL were 1.8 m
long and of 6 kN rating. In-line energy absorbers were employed but these are not described.
In the tests which involved the multiple release of test masses, all masses were released
approximately simultaneously, (no error given).
A summary of the 11 tests is shown in Table 5. Note that not all details are disclosed.
Table 5
Summary of test results of multiple near-simultaneous fall simulations on long
single-span HLL after Dayawansa and Ralph (1997)
Test
No
Cable type /
span (m)
Free fall
(m)
No. of in-line
energy
absorbers
Maximum end
anchor load (kN)
01
Galv / 33
1.0
17.7
02
Galv / 33
2.0
19.8
03
Galv / 33
2.0
20.3
04
Galv / 33
2.0
16.0
05
Galv / 33
2.0
27.2
06
Galv / 33
1.3
26.8
07
SS / 33
1.3
19.3
08
Galv / 17
1.3
17.4
09
Kern / 17
1.3
8.4
10
Galv / 33
1.3
25.2
11
SS / 17
1.0
33.3
Notes:
Galv
SS
Kern
=
=
=
galvanised steel
stainless steel
kernmantel
(ii) No individual V deflections were given except the maximum values stated in the text immediately
following this table
42
For tests with two masses on a 17 m span the maximum V deflection was 1700 mm
For the test with two masses on a 17 m span using the kernmantel rope the maximum
V deflection was 1260 mm. The deflection in the 17 m span steel cable was higher
than that of the kernmantel type because of the additional extension of the in-line
energy absorber.
In most of the tests that simulated multiple fall situations, it was noted that the
attachments to the HLL slid along the cable towards the bottom of the V deflection
after the first impact causing the masses to collide with each other. Some of the
masses touched the ground during this process13.
The maximum V deflections between galvanised and stainless steel cables did not
appear to differ greatly
For a given cable type and size, V deflection depended on:
o
o
o
o
o
Span
In-line energy absorber extension
Position of falls
Free fall heights
Number of near simultaneous falls
Since the test programme did not cover sufficient combinations of the above parameters
in order to determine the maximum V deflection, a reasonable safety factor would
have to be applied if any of the recorded deflection measurements were ever used in
calculating the minimum free space required beneath a HLL, in order to avoid collisions
with the ground or other substantial obstacle.
Significantly high loads can be generated at end-anchors of long single-span HLLs
in comparison to those supported with intermediate anchors
Multiple near-simultaneous falls increase end-anchor loads in comparison to single
falls
In-line energy absorbers can reduce loads at end-anchors significantly
The loads at end-anchors can be significantly lower in kernmantel based HLLs than
those generated in steel cable based HLLs, but may lead to greater V deflections
V deflections in long, single-span HLLs, extension of in-line energy absorbers, and
extension of personal energy absorbing lanyards in multiple fall situations requires
special attention by designers and users of HLLs. The combinations of these
displacements may become sufficiently large to pull other workers away from their
position of work, (i.e. the first person who falls may pull others off-balance). Also, the
excessive deflection of the HLL may cause second and subsequent workers to
experience excessive free falls before being arrested by the HLL.
13
Authors note: although it is claimed that the measured maximum V deflection and maximum end-anchor loads
may not have been affected by these ground collisions, it would be logical to check the respective force-time histories
first (which were not shown)
43
Table 6
Summary of test results of 4 simultaneous releases of anthropomorphic dummies on
multi-span HLL after Drabble (1995)
32 @ 1100
1000
30 @ 1100
1000
5.0 @ 1050
970
4.5 @ 1050
950
5.2 @ 1425
1050
5.2 @ 1410
1100
5.2 @ 1090
1045
4.8 @ 1090
1020
5.6 @ 1090
1040
6.1 @ 1090
1030
As can be seen from Table 6, the maximum end-anchor loadings occurred simultaneously, and
within a time interval of 10 50 ms after the maximum arrest forces had been transmitted by
each of the four dummies. The exception is dummy 2 which had a much later maximum arrest
force. What is interesting to note is that although the four dummies were released
simultaneously, (the margin of error is not stated), the time at which onset of arrest commenced
varied between each dummy. This is the time at which the HLL and energy absorbing lanyard
just start to resist the downward motion of the dummy, i.e. the HLL just begins to deflect and
the lanyard is taut. These onset times (at the HLL connection point) were: 970, 1050, 1045 and
1040 ms for dummies 1-4 respectively, i.e. 80 ms between the first and last onsets.
14
i.e. they were released approximately 2.0 m above the level of the HLL
44
The end-anchor loadings were in the region of 30 kN, for near-simultaneous applied loadings of
5kN arrest force per dummy (dummies 1, 3 and 4), plus dummy 2s contribution of 4 kN at the
1050-1090 ms time frame, which later peaked at 5.2 kN. This shows that the forces transmitted
to end-anchors are magnifications of the applied arrest forces and that applied arrest forces
can be accumulative if they are applied within a short time frame. If, however the dummies
had been released, or had impacted the HLL over a greater range of time, the end-anchor
loadings may have been smaller. What is significant, is that the combined energy applied of 4 x
100 kg dummies, each free falling through 4 m, and dissipating that energy at a rate of 5 kN
nominally, only produced end-anchor loadings of 30-32 kN, for a V deflection of 0.85 m, and
a energy-absorber extension of 1.5 m. This means that although four persons were falling
simultaneously in the same sub-span, the distance that they were decelerated through was only
2.35 m for a 4.0 m free fall. Whilst this can be partly be explained by the energy-dissipating
nature of the harness-clad dummy, which attempts to model a real man-fall more accurately that
by using a steel test mass, Riches (2002), the main mechanism at work is the fact that the cable
was supported at intervals throughout its length, as opposed to a single-span system, and the
stiffness characteristics of the cable allowed a significant amount of energy to be dissipated
whilst restricting excessive deflection.
45
Fig 17 STAGREL of two dummies at 500 ms interval, after Riches & Feathers (1998)
46
The dummies were connected to the HLL and were released in various sub-spans, see Table 7,
via 1 m long energy absorbing lanyards connected at the dorsal harness attachment point,
(energy absorber nearest HLL), and were released such that their free fall amounted to 2.0 m
before the HLL started to deflect15. Other interconnecting equipment was also tested. Load cells
were inserted at the end-anchors and at the connection point between HLL and lanyard. A
summary of the test schedule is shown in Table 7.
Table 7
Summary of test configurations after Monks (1991)
Test
No.
No. of
dummies
Drop sub-span
No
Drop position
in sub-span
Attaching equipment
between HLL and
harness
Release
type
Mid-sub-span
Energy absorbing
lanyard
Mid-sub-span
Retractable lifeline
Mid-sub-span
Retractable lifeline
Quarter subspan
Mid-sub-span
6 and 7 (one
dummy in each)
2 and 3 (one
dummy in each)
In respective
mid-sub-spans
Quarter and
three-quarter
sub-span
Quarter and
three-quarter
sub-span
In respective
mid-sub-spans
Energy absorbing
lanyard
Energy absorbing
lanyards
Energy absorbing
lanyards
10
Mid-sub-span
11
Mid-sub-span
12
4 and 5 flanking
corner (one
dummy in each)
In respective
mid-sub-spans
13
14
Note:
SIMREL =
STAGREL =
15
Directly over
one support
bracket and near
to same bracket
Directly on
corner unit
500 ms
STAGREL
500 ms
STAGREL
Energy absorbing
lanyards
500 ms
STAGREL
Energy absorbing
lanyards
SIMREL
Energy absorbing
lanyards
Energy absorbing
lanyards
Energy absorbing
lanyards
SIMREL
SIMREL
SIMREL
Energy absorbing
lanyards
SIMREL
Energy absorbing
lanyards
SIMREL
Energy absorbing
lanyards
SIMREL
i.e. they were released approximately 1.0 m above the level of the HLL
47
16
17
48
Table 8
Summary of test results after Monks (1990)
Test
No.
Rope
construction
Maximum
applied
load (kN)
Failure
load in
cable (kN)
V
deflection at
failure (mm)
8 mm 7x7
18
37
10 mm 7x7
29
12 mm 7x7
Two persons
arrested at 6 kN
each (12 kN)
216
1.5
60
204
4.83
2.42
37
74
216
6.17
3.08
8 mm
dyformed
26
59
172
4.33
2.16
9.5 mm
dyformed
31
7 5 (iii)
160
5.17
2.58
8 mm 7x7
12
28
168
8 mm 7x7
18
37
240
1.5
Notes:
(i)
(ii)
maximum applied load is that load applied in a direction perpendicular to HLL which
caused the HLL cable to fail
(iii)
dyformed construction is a type of rope construction which uses shaped strands to reduce
airspace in the rope structure and hence provide a greater strength than conventional
round-stranded structures
(iv)
in all cases except test 5, the rope failed at the mid-span point. In test 5 the applied load was
held at 31 kN, (without failure), since the maximum measurement capacity of the load cell at
the end-anchor was 75 kN
(v)
in Tests 6 and 7, the same ropes were tested but with different travelling devices
(vi)
system safety factor is the maximum applied load divided by the maximum arrest force
generated by a single person (6 kN) or by two persons being arrested simultaneously (12
kN)
49
In Monks (1990), apart from test 5, all rope failures occurred at the mid-span point, where the
load was applied, and where the rope was caused to bend through a sharp radius. This causes a
stress concentration, causing local weakening. As a result in some of the above cases the rope
failed prematurely, i.e. at a load lower than that if it had been pulled in direct tension, (which
is the normal direction of stressing, for a rope). For example, the 8 mm 7 x 7 rope has a
minimum breaking strength of 38 kN when loaded in direct tension. This is a minimum, and is
generally some 10% higher in practice. However, Tests 1, 6 and 7 recorded a lower figure, (37,
28 and 37 kN respectively), indicating that a weakening effect had taken place.
Similarly 12 mm 7 x 7 rope has a minimum breaking strength of 81 kN when loaded in direct
tension. Test 3 recorded a lower figure of 74 kN, indicating that a weakening effect had taken
place.
In Tests 6 and 7, the same ropes were tested but with different travelling devices for the
connection of a lanyard. The results of these tests underline the absolute necessity to test for
interaction and compatibility between device and rope in actual loading conditions. The
device in test 6 was of good design for its intended function, but of poor design in how it
interacted with the rope. Its relatively abrupt edges effectively sliced through the rope at an
applied load of only 12 kN. In comparison, the device in Test 7, with its relatively smooth
edges, did not cause the rope to fail below an applied loading of 18 kN.
It is also worth mentioning that these type of static tests also demonstrate the system safety
factor. In strength terms this shows how much reserve of strength a system may have, over and
above that which is required when the maximum arrest force is applied. In other words, the
highest load that can be applied to the HLL before failure, in a direction perpendicular to the
HLL, divided by the maximum arrest force. For example, assuming a maximum arrest force of 6
kN per person, Test 6 would have a system safety factor of two (12 6). All the other tests
exhibited a system safety factor of at least 3, (e.g. Test 5, 31 6 = 5.17). However when a twoperson simultaneous impact is considered, these factors reduce. In this case 12 kN is applied, so
in Test 6s case, the rope would almost certainly fail. Also in Test 1 and 7 the safety factor
would only be 1.5 (18 12)18.
3.5.4 Research and development
In Riches and Feathers (1998) an account is given of research, development and testing of
multiple-use, multi-span HLLs from the design perspective. Designing a FAS is a very
demanding activity because great care has to be exercised when analysing the moral, legal,
technical and commercial aspects, before making decisions. Often, the first three aspects require
significant attention before the latter can be properly realised, with all the attendant pressures.
The designer has to be painstakingly conscientious, and must be able to work with a clear
conscience, because fundamentally the task is not to protect limbless wooden dummies or steel
test masses from colliding with the test house floor, but is to prevent the injury or death of a real
person. Any design mistake not detected during an inadequately designed test programme can
result in someones death.
Amateur fabrications
A number of different HLL fabrications were studied in Riches and Feathers (1998). The
components involved had been made without production tooling and were for one-off type
installations. As a result a number of welds had been used to join parts together.
18
This assumes that when the load was applied with two travelling devices, the weakening effect on the rope would
be the same as that with one device. In practice it may be better or worse.
50
Failure points
In another one-off type fabrication, a travelling device had been made, for the connection of a
workers lanyard. It had an unconventional profile. As an experiment, it was decided to
incrementally load this component to destruction, together with the HLL rope, in the manner in
which it would be loaded in a fall-arrest occurrence, i.e. perpendicular to the HLL, Figure 19.
Line of HLL, prior to loading
Anchor
HLL rope
Travelling device
Applied loading
51
At an applied loading of 15 kN the device cut completely through the rope, indicating that the
interaction between device and rope constituted a serious weakness. The profile had been
contributory to the cutting action. This test also showed that when individual components are
combined together in a system, as would be the case in practice, the strength of the whole
system may be different to the individual strengths of each component. Consequently, and
especially with FAS based on HLLs, it is essential to assess how the whole system performs
from a dynamic performance and strength viewpoint.
Retractable arresters
Riches and Feathers (1998) discuss the benefits and problems of attaching retractable arresters
to HLLs. The benefits are a greater range of movement for the worker in the vertical and
horizontal plane, with generally better fall-arrest performance over that of fixed length energy
absorbing lanyards.
The first problem with using these devices, is that their performance has to modelled for
incorporation into a computer program, or other method of calculation, which can then be used
to determine end-anchor loads, arrest force and total fall distance.
The second problem is that of the ratchet bounce phenomenon. In a fall, the rapid extraction
of the lifeline element from its housing causes the reel on which it is wound to accelerate. At a
pre-determined angular velocity, spring-loaded locking pawls which are mounted to this reel are
inertially thrown out and engage a braking ring. This causes the lifeline to lock-up and prevents
further extraction, providing the arrest resistance. In normal use the locking pawls are held away
from the braking ring by springs, which allows the lifeline to be extracted and retracted in
response to worker movement, without locking-up.
In a fall, once the locking pawls are engaged into the braking ring, it is important that they stay
in place. In normal fall-arrest circumstances they are held in place by the tension in the lifeline
element, caused by the arrest force, and subsequently by the weight of the worker in post-fall
arrest suspension.
When ratchet bounce occurs, the locking pawls are allowed to disengage the braking ring,
because the tension in the lifeline element decays, and the springs pull the pawls away from the
ring. This allows the worker to free fall again, causing more extraction of the lifeline element,
until at such time when the pawls can re-engage. This cycle can be repeated several times until
the pawls finally lock and stay in place. Obviously ratchet bounce has to be avoided otherwise it
submits the worker to several arrests and increases arrest distance.
An example of this can be seen in Figure 20. This shows the force-time trace of a drop test
conducted on a retractable type arrester that was attached to a fixed anchor. The test was
conducted with no free fall and with a 75 kg solid mass. The five major peaks showed that it
required five attempts before the locking pawls could finally engage, i.e. the test mass bounced
five times.
Retractable arresters are particularly prone to ratchet bounce when the load path or anchor
is not stiff enough, i.e. when it is too springy19. This can cause the lifeline element of the
retractable arrester to relax too much after the moment of first impact, allowing the pawls to
disengage the braking ring. This can be greatly exacerbated when the anchor point is
flexible, such as the situation when attached to a HLL.
19
52
In Riches and Feathers (1998), the approach to dealing with this problem was to design a special
type of retractable arrester for use with HLLs, which contained locking pawls with anti-ratchet
bounce features, to prevent the release of the pawls in a fall situation.
Notes:
Numbers in circles 1-5 show the five locking pawl engagements and immediate
disengagements; intervals between locking attempts are shown with dotted arrows
53
Another interesting case study is brought up in Riches and Feathers (1998), in regard to
maintenance deficiencies. The gusting conditions on board an oil-rig had caused a cable-based
HLL to wear within its intermediate support bracket, (Figure 21). Several wires had broken
before the damage was detected; this would have caused a serious weakening of the cable in a
fall-arrest incident.
Figure 21 Broken cable wires after wearing against bracket (authors private collection)
Some dangerous situations are not necessarily easy to foresee, as highlighted in Riches and
Feathers (1998), and as shown in Figure 22. As part of a research programme, two full
anthropomorphic, articulated dummies were simultaneously released whilst attached to a HLL
via energy absorbing lanyards. This was to simulate two workers falling together at the same
time, as had been reported in some case studies of accidents, Health and Safety Executive
(1985).
The pre-release point was such that the dorsal harness attachment point, to which the lanyard
was attached, was approximately 1.5 m above the level of the HLL. This simulated the lifeline
being installed at walk way level. After the drop-test, the review of the high speed photography
revealed that one dummy caught the HLL under its armpit during the fall, which caused the arm
to be pushed upwards, as Figure 22 shows. In a real life incident this could have severely
injured the worker, and so the test highlighted one hazard when allowing a worker to work with
a HLL installed at the level of the feet.
54
Figure 22 SIMREL of two dummies being arrested by way of a HLL with attached
energy absorbing lanyards; dummy George (right hand side) catches his arm during
the fall. After Riches and Feathers, (1998).
3.5.5 Design and performance details
A number of design and performance features are discussed in Riches (1992b), which are worth
highlighting:
System safety factor (as described in clause 3.5.3). The reserve of strength afforded by
the system safety factor is required for a number of reasons:
o
o
o
o
o
Manufacturers may apply different safety factors on their products. Standards require a
minimum safety factor of between 2 - 2.5 in general. Fall arrest loading takes place over
a fraction of a second; FAS that have been loaded in a fall situation are invariably
scrapped, or critical components are replaced or closely examined afterwards.
Design for installation whereas design for use and function are important, they should
not be at the expense of design for installation. Installation should be relatively simple
without undue complication, in order to avoid errors. Component design should
facilitate safe installation.
55
56
Table 9
Summary of advantages and disadvantages between single-span and multi-span HLLs
after Riches (1992b)
Aspect
Installation
Design /
calculations
Multi-span HLL
Travelling
device
57
58
HLL
Walk way
3
Ground level
Key:
EA:
end anchor
IA:
intermediate anchor
1:
2:
3:
safety clearance
RFS:
Figure 23 Example of recommended free space for a FAS based on a multi-span HLL
and energy-absorbing lanyard after Riches & Feathers (1998)
59
20
in clause 5.6, a recommendation for future research is made to address this deficiency
60
Table 10
Summary of test results after Lobert (2004)
Test
No.
No of test
masses &
energy
absorbing
lanyards
Time
interval
between
individual
test mass
releases (ms)
Maximum
arrest
force (kN)
Comment21
4.0
20.0
2.5
19.0
5.0
17.0
15.5
16.0
14.0
10.5
7.5
21
10.0
50.0
100
200.0
500.0
61
22
62
The FAS must also ensure that after braking the user is maintained in a correct position
in which he may await help if necessary.
The manufacturers notes must specify in particular relevant information relating to:
o the characteristics required for the reliable anchor point and the necessary
minimum clearance below the user
o the proper way of putting on the body harness and of connecting the attachment
system to the reliable anchor point.
Pre-use checks and ongoing maintenance
Maintenance of PPE and storage is required under regulations 7 and 8 of the PPE at Work
Regulations (1992). An effective system of maintenance is essential to make sure that the
equipment continues to provide the degree of protection for which it was designed. This, where
appropriate, includes cleaning, disinfection, examination, replacement, repair and testing. The
responsibility for carrying out maintenance should be laid down, together with details of
procedures to be followed and their frequency.
A product such as a temporary-installed HLL, which undergoes frequent repeated cycles of
installation/de-installation/reinstallation, in all kinds of outdoor environments, and in heavy
industrial conditions, and given its safety critical nature, would certainly need a regular planned
preventative maintenance programme. This programme would probably be carried out at 3
monthly or even monthly intervals, depending on the durability of the design in question.
However manufacturers maintenance schedules and instructions should normally be followed:
any significant departure from them should be discussed with the manufacturers or their
authorised agent.
The requirements of regulation 7 of the PPE at Work Regulations (1992) extend to examination
before use. Such examinations should be carried out by properly trained staff in accordance with
manufacturers instructions. Regulation 8 requires that employers need to ensure that storage is
provided for PPE so that it can be safely stored or kept when not in use. Such arrangements
should be adequate to protect the PPE from contamination or damage by harmful environments,
e.g. damp or sunlight.
Training
Regulation 9 of the same regulations requires that the employer is to ensure that the worker
using the PPE is provided with information, instruction and training as is adequate and
appropriate to enable the employee to know:
The risks which the PPE will avoid or limit
The purpose for which and the manner in which the PPE is to be used
Any action to be taken by the employee to ensure that the PPE remains in an efficient
state, in efficient working order and in good repair
Training should involve both theoretical and practical elements; in the case of a temporaryinstalled HLL, this would include the method of installation.
63
64
65
If self retracting equipment25 is connected to a HLL, the sag in the HLL should be
minimised to prevent the device from sliding down the lifeline to a position which
creates a swing hazard during fall arrest. In all cases, manufacturers instructions should
be followed.
Construction industry
Another set of U.S. regulations, the Code of Federal Regulations 29 Pt 1926.500 (1996), which
are more applicable to the U.S. construction industry, repeat much of the above, but in addition
brings attention to problems which may occur when retractable type fall arresters are attached to
HLLs:
Most manufacturers warn in the users handbook that safety blocks / retractable
lifelines26 must be positioned above the attachment point on the harness (above the
workspace of the intended user). Attachment of a retractable device to a HLL near floor
level may result in increased free fall due to the attachment point on the harness being
some five feet higher than the attachment point of the HLL. Impact forces may exceed
the maximum arrest force permitted27, with the potential for swing falls increased.
Manufacturers recommend an anchor for the retractable lifeline28 which is immovably
fixed in space and is independent of the users support systems. A movable anchor is
one which can be moved around (such as equipment or wheeled vehicles) or which can
deflect substantially under shock loading (such as a HLL or very flexible beam). In this
case a shock load applied during fall-arrest can cause oscillation of the HLL such that
the retractable brake mechanism may undergo one or more cycles of
locking/unlocking/locking (ratchet effect) until the HLL deflection is dampened.
Therefore, this use involves critical engineering and safety factors and should only be
considered after fixed point anchors have been determined not to be feasible.
HLLs used as an anchor present an additional hazard due to amplification of the
horizontal component of arrest force of a fall transmitted to the points where the HLL is
attached to the structure. This amplification is due to the angle of sag (deflection angle)
and is most severe for smaller angles.
25
66
INDG 367
In the UK, INDG 367 (2002) gives advice predominantly on inspection regimes for energyabsorbing lanyards made from webbing or rope. It also states that the principles described can
be applied to other textile-based fall-arrest equipment. This would apply to webbing- or fibre
rope-based HLLs.
Recent research is mentioned in INDG 367 (2002), as disclosed in Health and Safety Laboratory
(2002), in which a number of potential causes of degradation of synthetic fibre webbing
lanyards was confirmed. These included:
abuse
general wear and tear
edge/surface damage
ultraviolet light (UV)
dirt/grit
chemicals
The research also highlighted that there is no well-defined boundary concerning usable life
separating those lanyards that are safe and those that are not. The conclusion was that if
lanyards were to continue to provide the required level of fall protection, then it would be
essential that they were subjected to an effective inspection regime.
The scope of such an inspection scheme described in INDG 367 (2002) covers pre-use checks,
detailed and interim inspections.
67
Pre-use checks are described as essential and should be carried out prior to each use. Detailed
inspections are described as in-depth inspections and are recommended to be carried out every
six months. In cases of frequent use, the suggestion is to increase the frequency of the sixmonthly inspection to every three months, particularly where equipment is used in arduous
environments.
Interim inspections are highlighted as a possible requirement in addition to pre-use and detailed
inspections. These may be needed where a risk assessment has identified a risk that could result
in rapid deterioration, affecting the safety of the equipment before the next inspection is due.
Examples of such situations given in INDG 367 (2002), are:
stitching damage
damaged/deformed fittings
68
Attention is drawn to the fact that some configurations of HLLs may require more than 8 m of
clear space underneath the lifeline, in order to prevent any collisions if a worker should fall.
On buildings under construction, the building designer should be consulted to determine if the
existing structure is strong enough to withstand potential fall-arrest loadings at the locations
where the HLLs are needed.
Queensland Government (2002) goes on to make some sound recommendations in respect of
HLL verification, which should include factors such as the following:
Any verification should include all parts of the FAS, as used on site, and not parts in
isolation, (e.g. the end-anchor fittings may be very strong in themselves, but if the
anchoring structure or method of attachment is structurally inadequate the FAS may fail
when a person falls resulting in a drop to the ground).
The design of end-anchor components and the method of attaching the HLL to the
structure via these.
The minimum strength of the supporting structure.
Specification of the HLL: material, type, size, pre-tension etc.
Maximum span.
Minimum amount of free space required to underneath the lifeline.
Maximum number of persons to be attached to the HLL at any one time.
Where the HLL or connecting lanyards can contact an edge, verification that the line
will not fail due to damage on contact, (which may be verifiable by on-site testing).
Reference is made to Australian Standard AS/NSZ 1891.2 (2001) as one means of verification.
Some recommendations are also made in regard to testing:
Where testing is selected to verify the system, it should reflect the way that the HLL is
set up and used on site and should be severe enough to demonstrate that the system will
not cause injury to the user. It is also advisable for testing to be undertaken by an
independent testing organisation that has experience in the testing of FAS.
When performing tests it may be necessary to:
o select a test weight with a suitable safety factor (i.e. the test weight should be
heavier than the heaviest person(s) using the FAS)
o drop the test weight so that the free fall of the weight, prior to the FAS starting
to arrest the fall, is at least equivalent to the maximum free fall that may be
experienced by a user
o drop the test weight in the worst possible locations to maximise the loads at the
anchors and in the lifeline
Any testing should demonstrate that the HLL does not catastrophically fail.
69
70
a warning that a rescue plan shall be in place to deal with any emergencies that could
arise during the work;
a warning against making any alterations or additions to the equipment without the
manufacturers prior written consent, and that any repair shall only be carried out in
accordance with manufacturers procedures;
a warning that the equipment shall not be used outside its limitations, or for any purpose
other than that for which it is intended;
sufficient information to ensure the compatibility of items of equipment when
assembled into a system;
a warning of any dangers that may arise by the use of combinations of items of
equipment in which the safe function of any one item is affected by or interferes with
the safe function of another;
an instruction for the user to carry out a pre-use check of the equipment, to ensure that it
is in a serviceable condition and operates correctly before it is used;
the features of the equipment that require the pre-use check, the method of checking,
and the criteria against which the user can decide whether or not the equipment is
defective;
a warning stating that it is essential for safety that equipment is withdrawn from use
immediately should any doubt arise about its condition for safe use, or if it has been
used to arrest a fall, and not used again until confirmed by a competent person in
writing that it is acceptable to do so;
the requirements of the anchor device or structural member chosen to serve as the
anchor point(s), in particular the minimum required strength, the suitability and the
position;
instructions on how to connect to the anchor device or structure;
an instruction detailing the correct harness attachment point to use, and how to connect
to it;
for equipment intended for use in FAS, a warning to emphasise that it is essential for
safety that the anchor device or anchor point should always be positioned, and the work
carried out in such a way, as to minimise both the potential for falls and potential fall
distance. Where it is essential that the anchor device/point is placed above the position
of the user, the manufacturer shall make a statement to that effect;
an instruction that a full body harness is the only acceptable body holding device that
can be used in a fall arrest system;
a warning to emphasise that it is essential for safety to verify the free space required
beneath the user at the workplace before each occasion of use, so that, in the case of a
fall, there will be no collision with the ground or other obstacle in the fall path;
71
information on the hazards that may affect the performance of the equipment and
corresponding safety precautions that have to be observed, e.g: extremes of temperature,
trailing or looping of lanyards or lifelines over sharp edges, chemical reagents, electrical
conductivity, cutting, abrasion, climatic exposure, pendulum falls;
instructions as relevant on how to protect the equipment against damage during
transportation;
information on the meaning of any markings and/or symbols on the equipment;
a statement of any known limit to the safe useable life of the product or any part of the
product and/or advice on how to determine when the product is no longer safe to use.
Instructions for maintenance
This document has to contain:
cleaning procedures;
a warning that when the equipment becomes wet, either from being in use or when due
to cleaning, it shall be allowed to dry naturally, and shall be kept away from direct heat;
storage procedures, including all necessary preventative requirements where
environmental or other factors could affect the condition of components, e. g. damp
environment, sharp edges, vibration, ultra-violet degradation;
Instructions for periodic examination and repair
This document has to contain:
a warning to emphasize the need for regular periodic examinations29, and that the safety
of users depends upon the continued efficiency and durability of the equipment;
a recommendation in regard to the frequency of periodic examinations, taking account
of such factors as legislation, equipment type, frequency of use, and environmental
conditions. The recommendation shall include a statement to the effect that the periodic
examination frequency shall be at least every 12 months;
a warning to emphasize that periodic examinations are only to be conducted by a
competent person for periodic examination and strictly in accordance with the
manufacturers periodic examination procedures;
where deemed necessary by the manufacturer, e. g. due to the complexity or innovation
of the equipment, or where safety critical knowledge is needed in the dismantling,
reassembly, or assessment of the equipment, (e. g. a retractable type fall arrester), an
instruction specifying that periodic examinations shall only be conducted by the
manufacturer or by a person or organisation authorised by the manufacturer;
a requirement to check the legibility of the product markings;
29
72
any repair shall only be conducted by a competent person for repair, who has been
authorised by the manufacturer, and that the repair procedure shall be strictly in
accordance with the manufacturers instructions.
3.7.6 British standard BS EN 795
As mentioned under clause 3.7.1, PPE conforming with harmonised European standards are
deemed to demonstrate compliance with the basic health and safety requirements of the PPE
Regulations (2002). The standard which covers temporarily-installed HLLs (where they are
categorised as a Class C product) is BS EN 795 (1997). Selected points from BS EN 795
(1997) relevant to temporarily-installed HLL are:
the travelling device must not be capable of unintentional detachment from the HLL; if
it is fitted with a device to allow it to be manually separated from the HLL (to allow
access at specific points), it has to be designed so that it can only be detached or
attached by at least two deliberate manual actions
the minimum breaking strength of the cable, rope or webbing which constitutes the
HLL, has to be at least twice the maximum tension that can be generated within the
HLL in a fall-arrest occurrence, (including when two or more persons are
simultaneously connected)
other load bearing components have to be capable of withstanding twice the maximum
tension that can be generated within the HLL in a fall-arrest occurrence
lifeline, fittings and terminations have to be capable of withstanding 1.5 times the
manufacturers permitted design force (an in-line test, not perpendicular to lifeline)
in the dynamic test, the end-anchor loads/lifeline tension and deflection is not allowed
to vary by more than 20% from that determined by the manufacturers calculation /
method of performance prediction
the dynamic test ensures that a force of 6 kN is imparted to the HLL
a dynamic strength test ensures that a force of 12 kN is imparted to the HLL
the following information is to be displayed either by marking or tagging the HLL or by
using a wall plate:
o maximum number of attached workers permitted
o the need for energy absorbers
o ground clearance requirements
At the time of writing, (March 2004), BS EN 795 (1997) is undergoing a substantial technical
revision.
73
European Commission
In European Commission Communication (2000), a statement was made by the European
Commission that the clauses within BS EN 795 (1997) which covered HLLs (and other
products), would no longer be a means to demonstrate compliance with the basic health and
safety requirements of Directive 89/686/EEC30. This was due to legal and other problems as to
what constituted an anchor, (HLLs in BS EN 795 being described as: anchor devices
employing horizontal flexible lines).
Subsequently, it has been shown that European Commission Communication (2000) is probably
flawed, since both the European Manager, (who is responsible for Directive 89/686/EEC), and
the PPE Consultant, (who is engaged by the European Commission, and is responsible for the
supervision of European standards such as BS EN 795), have both agreed that temporarilyinstalled HLLs are PPE, Riches (2003) and Dirscherl (2004).
Despite this, a commonly held (but mistaken) view is that European Commission
Communication (2000) says that HLLs are now no longer PPE. European Commission
Communication (2000) does not in fact say this, and in Finch (2003), the Department of Trade
and Industry31 also agree that European Commission Communication (2000) does not say this.
What it does say is that the relevant clauses of BS EN 795 (1997) cannot be used to demonstrate
compliance. Therefore HLLs are PPE under the PPE Regulations (2002), but test specifications
other than those in BS EN 795 (1997) need to be used to demonstrate compliance. This means
manufacturers will have to use their own test specification.
This has important ramifications for the UK market since temporarily-installed HLLs may end
up being tested in quite different ways in order to meet the PPE Regulations (2002).
3.7.7 British standard BS 7883
A code of practice was written in support of devices covered in BS EN 795, BS 7883 (1997)
and is currently under revision. Selected points relevant to temporarily-installed HLL are:
It is essential that a safe means of access is provided for personnel installing HLLs
HLLs should not be used if they have been modified without the manufacturers
permission
HLLs should only be installed on structure with sufficient stability and strength to
withstand any fall-arrest loadings imposed
HLLs should be installed at a height in order to keep any potential free fall to a
minimum
Energy absorbing lanyards and connectors should not be allowed to trail over sharp or
abrupt edges in normal use or when pulled taut during a fall-arrest occurrence
30
31
This is the European document which was transposed into UK national law as the PPE Regulations (2002).
The UK Government Department responsible for the PPE Regulations (2002).
74
HLLs are to have a tensile strength capable of supporting a static load of at least 2273
kg mass per employee using the lifeline, applied anywhere along the lifeline32. A
qualified engineer should be consulted in the application of the HLL.
HLLs are to have a maximum of two persons connected at any one time between
supports.
Anchorages for HLLs are to be specified by a qualified person and shall be capable of
sustaining the loads specified above. They are to be capable of supporting a mass of
2273 kg per employee attached, or shall be designed, installed and used as part of a
complete FAS under the supervision of a qualified person maintaining a safety factor of
at least two. Angle of sag and pre-tensioning are essential considerations when
installing.
Lifelines33 are to be designed, installed and used as part of a complete FAS under the
supervision of a qualified person maintaining a safety factor of at least two.
Users responsibilities
There are some interesting requirements relating to users responsibilities, selection and use in
ANSI A10.14 (1991):
Users are to be trained by a competent person34 before using HLLs in the application
limits, installations, proper anchoring and connecting techniques, method of use,
inspection and storage of equipment. Retraining should be repeated at regular intervals.
The employee is also to receive training in the choice of suitable anchor points.
HLLs should be installed as to limit the free fall of any employee to 1.5 m and to
prevent collision with any lower level.
Each HLL shall be inspected periodically, but not less than twice annually by a
competent person according to the manufacturers recommendation. Equipment
showing any defect is to be withdrawn immediately.
HLLs subjected to impacts caused by a fall or by testing are to be removed from service
and should not be used again.
HLLs are to be visually inspected prior to each use.
32
It is not clear whether the tensile strength relates to the static load being applied perpendicular to the lifeline or
directly in-line with it.
33
Lifelines are defined in the standard as being either vertical or horizontal in orientation.
34
Defined as one who is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the surroundings or working
conditions that are unsanitary, hazardous or dangerous to employees, and who has the authority to take prompt
corrective measures to eliminate such hazards.
75
A snap hook is not to be connected back on its integral lanyard, (the connector on a
lanyard should not be passed over the HLL and then connected back onto the lanyard to
form a loop around the HLL).
Wire rope is not to be used where electrical hazards are present.
Fall-arrest harnesses are to be connected to the FAS by using the dorsal attachment
point.
Product marking and instructions for use
Aspects of ANSI A10.14 (1991) relating to markings and instructions for use include:
HLLs are to be marked or tagged with equipment length, rating, and the number of
attached people permitted.
Instructions for use are to explain the following:
o
o
o
o
Installation requirements
Direction for use
Directions for maintenance
Directions for inspection
35
Based on the possibility that a person may fall when the travelling device is directly over an intermediate support
bracket. The maximum arrest force permitted to be transmitted to the workers harness attachment point under this
draft standard is 8.0 kN; a safety factor of 2 has been applied to produce a test load of 16.0 kN.
76
Dynamic tests are conducted with 100 kg test masses, on a basis of one test mass per
each worker permitted to be simultaneously attached to the HLL. Test masses are
connected to the HLL via the attachment subsystem, (whether this is an energy
absorbing lanyard, retractable lifeline, or other), permitted for use in conjunction with
the HLL. Test masses are released simultaneously. Each type of attachment subsystem
authorised for use with the HLL has to be evaluated in separate tests.
When the configuration that shows the highest end-anchor load has been determined
from the dynamic tests, this configuration has then to withstand to a static loading of 2.0
kN for each test mass used during the dynamic test, applied centre-span, in the same
direction as a fall36.
The above static test requirement has been increased to 12 kN in ISO/CD 16024 (1999),
reflecting a different philosophy. This test in effect applies a FOS of 2 to the maximum
arrest force permitted under that standard of 6 kN.
3.7.10 Australian / New Zealand standard AS/NZS 1891.2
In AS/NZS 1891.2 (2001) and supplement, an Australian standard for horizontal lifeline and
rail systems also contains some modern thinking and approaches, a large portion of which is
based on previous research as reported in Dayawansa and Ralph (1997). Points of interest
include:
The standard differentiates between:
o proprietary systems HLL based FAS for which the fall-arrest performance
of any design layout can be determined by a method or program which has been
verified by means of performance testing of prototypes over an adequately
representative range of layout configurations, and
o prescribed systems HLL based FAS set up in accordance with
configurations and components prescribed in tabular form within the
supplement to the standard.
The standard also differentiates between use for fall-arrest, restraint and work
positioning / personal suspension purposes. Use for work positioning is discouraged
unless the system is specifically designed for such a purpose.
The combined HLL and terminations used, has to withstand twice the maximum load in
the HLL for any fall-arrest event in the case of steel wire rope, and four times in the
case of fibre rope or webbing.
In-line energy absorbers are only allowed in proprietary systems. They have specific
requirements in order to prevent inadvertent operation and to ensure that sufficient
integrity remains even when the energy absorbing means has been fully exhausted.
36
1 kN reproduces the weight of a worker of 100 kg mass, which would be applied when the fall-arrest sequence was
over and the worker remained motionless in suspension. Applying a safety factor of 2 produces a test load of 2 kN.
This test appears to simulate suspension forces on the HLL after the arrest.
77
Where snap hooks and karabiners are the direct means of attachment to the HLL, in
order to prevent wear from frequent travelling along the lifeline, they have to be
selected for both the suitability of their material and section. Surface finish should not
damage the lifeline.
Either a test mass, torso dummy or full dummy37 of 100 kg mass is allowed to be used
as the test surrogate in the dynamic test.
Prescribed systems are limited to 100 m span with maximum sub-spans of 10.0 m.
Maximum number of attached users is limited to 4 and the lifeline material is limited to
8, 10 or 12 mm diameter galvanised steel cable, (depending on application), of 6 x 24
fibre core construction, to an Australian standard.
Mention is made of the potential for sliding down a leg towards the bottom of the V
deflection and swinging during a fall-arrest, especially where a fall occurs some
distance away from the centre of a long sub-span.
Assessment of structure to which a HLL is to be anchored is to be carried out by an
engineer or other competent person.
3.8 ACCIDENT DATA
Various accident data were searched such as those in Cloe and Breslin (1979), which described
98 falls from roofs, though ceilings or other surfaces with a fatal outcome, but no reference to
falls when attached to a HLL could be found. In Steinberg (1977) more than 100 possible
sources of fall-related injury data were contacted, in situations involving attachment to FAS.
At least half of the data obtained involved FAS that were not correctly secured to an anchor, i.e.
the falling worker did not remain linked to the anchor under the impact of the fall. Steinberg
comments that these falls generally resulted in fatalities and serve more to illustrate the misuse
of FAS than the effectiveness when properly secured.
Only about 35 cases involved falls which were arrested by correctly secured FAS. In two of
these the lanyards failed upon impact, probably due to sharp edges on the structural members
they were attached to. In the remaining cases, the falls were successfully arrested with no
significant injuries. The few injuries that were received came from contacts with other surfaces
during the fall. No specific mention is made about attachment to a HLL.
In order to try and obtain more substantial evidence, permission was obtained to study accident
cases recorded in the HSE Field Operations Directorate (FOD) database. The search used the
keywords: LIFELINES FALL-ARREST and LANYARDS. The search revealed that 270
accidents contained one or more of the keywords, occurring between April 2001 - June 2003.
Whilst at least one case might have been the result of a poorly installed HLL, it was not clear
from the report whether this was the actual case. No other cases were able to be attributed to the
use of HLLs.
37
A dummy that is anthropomorphic (resembling the human form), anthropometric (of a set size and with set
proportions relating to a statistical population), and with articulating joints, similarly disposed as with the human
body and with anthropometric ranges of movement.
78
79
Due to the remit of the research not all UK suppliers were directly consulted. Other suppliers
were indirectly consulted, e.g: some information was taken from suppliers websites as would
be done normally with a preliminary enquiry, i.e. not necessarily with their knowledge. This
does not mean that the organisations who were not directly consulted were in any way seen to
be inferior or less reputable than those who were. Nor does it mean that the contributions that
were received directly were in any way superior to those that were received indirectly.
Some product information was gathered from U.S, Canadian and Australian sources, to give an
international perspective.
As a result of the above approach, individual organisations are not referred to in respect of the
information that they supplied. The purpose was to report on current trends of the supply
industry and its approach to the marketplace. This kind of information is particularly useful
because: (i) it shows that different approaches can be made to solve the same problem, with
varying degrees of success, and (ii) it identifies common deficiencies and the particular
problems that need to be faced and overcome by all interested parties in order for the industry to
progress, commensurate with safety for the user.
All of the organisations who were contacted or visited were marketing permanently-installed
versions of HLLs, and nearly all were marketing temporarily-installed versions.
Whereas some of the results of the survey that follow apply to permanently-installed HLLs, they
have been included in the body of the report because the principles can be generally applied to
the temporarily-installed market. Indeed, most of the development work and thinking applied to
the temporary versions has been adopted from work previously done to bring the permanent
versions to market.
4.1 GENERAL
Overall, there seemed to be a lack of technical personnel and inclination towards research,
development and technical matters. It was clear that those companies who are inclined towards
research and development tended to be more aware of the main issues and problems to do with
HLLs, (and have taken steps to address those situations), than those companies who were less
inclined.
Some companies had a clear research and development outlook and were on the look out for
areas in which they could improve their product and their approach to market.
There was a substantial decline in standards committee attendance, which would seem to
indicate a lack of importance attached to standards. Only one manufacturer is active in CEN/TC
160 WG1 the European standards committee which is responsible for BS EN 795 (1997), the
standard which specifies HLL test requirements.
Temporarily-installed HLLs appear not to be a significant part of company sales, especially
when compared to the permanently-installed versions.
80
38
A reference to BS EN 795 (1997) quickly shows that HLLs come under the Class C categorisation
81
Generally, experienced and competent manufacturers find it difficult to compete with inexpert,
inexperienced organisations who offer products for sale with no technical back-up, but make
substantial claims as to what their product is capable of doing. An example cited is that similar
to the 100 kg issue mentioned above. In multiple use applications some organisations offer
HLLs on the basis that the first faller will apply a force of 6 kN to the lifeline, whereas the
second and third fallers will only apply 1 kN to it (their weight). This offer is without recourse
to analysis or testing, and in fact is a total misinterpretation and misapplication of clause 4.3.4
of BS EN 795 (1997). This clause refers to static test requirements for horizontal rail systems
not HLLs. Horizontal rails are the HLLs rigid counterpart and behave very differently in fallarrest situations. But because this clause is being misapplied, forces can be assumed to be much
lower than indeed they could be, as a result specification can be lower, and hence the price.
In another case a scaffolding company had rigged a self-made, improvised HLL and had
attached it to scaffolding. The ends of the wire were knotted around scaffold tubes, and three
men were attached to it. The free space beneath the HLL was described as minimal. In a fall
situation, the most likely outcome would be a fall to the ground, either as a result of failure of
the end attachments, localised collapse of scaffold, or as a result of not allowing sufficient
free space for the fall arrest equipment to extend in.
Another case described, involved the use of a retractable type fall arrester as an improvised
HLL. These devices are designed and tested for use in overhead installations, i.e. where the
arrester casing is anchored above the worker. In this particular case the fall arrester casing had
been connected to a post secured to a roof, and the lifeline had been extracted horizontally and
clipped to a second post. In effect a product intended for use in the vertical plane had been
adopted for use in the horizontal plane. In such a case there is no way of knowing how such an
arrangement will perform, whether a worker will be arrested should they fall, or whether the
device and surrounding structure will resist the loads imposed in a fall.
4.3 INSTALLATION AND DESIGN APPROACH
4.3.1 Computer analysis
Computer-based analysis is a common approach taken to predict loadings and fall distances in
enquiries pertaining to permanently-installed HLLs. It is seen as a vital part of the installation
process. Customers who wish to install or receive an installation are invited to submit a pro
forma which details the configuration of the proposed HLL. Details include:
Span
Number of attached workers and their mass
The type of fall arrest equipment to be connected to the HLL
Worst case free fall possibility (after reviewing relative positions of walkway, HLL and
lanyard length)
These quantities are entered into a computer analysis program which has been validated by
previous experimentation. Typically, a number of calculations are performed at different
locations on the HLL, in order to determine the worst case scenario.
82
A number of results are then obtained, in order to ascertain whether a particular configuration is
viable or not, e.g:
Forces in the fall arrest equipment connected to the HLL. If too high, a modification in
the configuration will be needed or else another method of fall protection will have to
be sought.
Forces in the HLL itself. A limit is typically set, taking in to account a safety factor. If
the force is too high, then again, a modification in the configuration will be needed or
else another method of fall protection will have to be sought. Such a modification might
be the introduction of an in-line energy absorber component.
Forces at the end-anchors. A limit is typically set, taking in to account a safety factor. If
the force is too high, then again, a modification in the configuration will be needed or
else another method of fall protection will have to be sought. Such a modification might
be the introduction of an in-line energy absorber component.
Total fall distance (worst case). Typically, the maximum distance of the simulated fall,
including free fall, V deflection of the HLL, braking distance of the arrest equipment,
harness stretch and height of worker. If the distance is too great, (allowing for an
additional safety clearance factor), indicating a possible collision with the ground, or a
close miss, then again, a modification in the configuration will be needed or else
another method of fall protection will have to be sought. Such a modification might
entail installing the HLL at a greater height, or the introduction of an intermediate
bracket.
The position on the HLL where the worst case total fall distance occurs is usually
indicated (mid-span for single span systems).
In determining worst case scenarios with multiple simultaneous users attached, consideration is
given to the potential effects of a number of persons falling simultaneously or nearsimultaneously.
In all cases, when a configuration or when the fall conditions are altered or additional
components are introduced, then calculations have to be repeated in order to ensure that the
alterations can ensure a safe system.
This approach works well, when installation companies and other professional organisations are
using it as a design service in order to design and install permanently-installed HLLs; however
it does not readily lend itself to be applied to the temporarily-installed versions. This is because
the permanently-installed HLLs have to undergo a disciplined design approach before they can
be installed, each system being tailor-made to the particular structure, with a variety of features,
namely several intermediate anchors, corner arrangements and other special components. The
anchors and fastenings which secure these HLLs to the structure are embedded within the host
structure, using either mechanical or chemical bonding arrangements, and hence constitute a
permanent installation39. Therefore a knowledge of the structure to which the system is being
installed is paramount, in terms of strength and stability, and the ability to select the right type
of fastening to anchor the HLL in place is crucial.
39
83
On the other hand, temporarily-installed systems are typically installed by the end-users
themselves, i.e. installation is very much akin to other fall-arrest equipment, e.g. retractable
arresters or energy-absorbing lanyards. They are also attached directly to features of the work
place structure, e.g. around a beam or column. Being temporary, they can be easily removed and
reinstalled somewhere else on a day to day basis.
This would make it very difficult to use a computer analysis program. First, the users would
have to provide all the information for the purposes of calculation, including the measurements
and potential fall conditions, and then would have to send this off in a particular format to the
manufacturers. They would then have to wait for the reply, which might require several query
and answer cycles, before commencing the installation. This would not work in some of the
situations in which temporarily-installed HLLs are employed. Nevertheless, this approach can
be used if the response can be rapid and if the education process is such that user organisations
demand it.
4.3.2 Graphical and tabular approaches
In other approaches, a large number of configurations and fall conditions have been pre
calculated, based on a range of different spans and other features. The results of this work is
expressed in a series of graphs, or tables, so that in theory a person installing a temporarilyinstalled HLL could refer to these graphs/tables in order to determine whether a particular
installation was viable and safe. This approach depends upon the proposed configuration being
covered by the parameters in the graphs/tables, and the ability of the user to interpret them. It
also relies on the performance of the type of fall-arrest product intended to be attached to the
HLL, being present in the table. If it is not, an incompatibility issue is then raised. For example,
one manufacturers energy absorbing lanyard may not perform in the same manner as anothers,
especially when connected to a HLL. This issue has led some suppliers to sell the fall arrest
equipment and HLL as a complete system, so that there are no incompatibility issues.
4.3.3 Modelling multiple-fall scenarios
In some cases the approach to the modelling of falls involving multiple users was a bit vague, in
others very clear. Some approaches assumed that it was possible for workers to fall and impact
the HLL at around the same time, Figure 24, so that the worst case scenario could be addressed,
(both in terms of loadings and fall distances), and safety factors applied accordingly.
As the permitted number of attached users increased, there was a tendency to relax the above
approach, on the basis that the likelihood of simultaneous impacts in real life would decrease as
the number of attached users increased. In one case a triple fall situation was modelled as a
double simultaneous impact plus a load equivalent to a persons weight. This modelled persons
Nos. 2 and 3 falling simultaneously after No.1 had fallen and had come to rest. The same
circumstance was modelled by assuming persons Nos. 1, 2 and 3 falling simultaneously which
as expected, resulted in much higher end-anchor loadings.
This particular issue is not helped by the lack of guidance in standards and in other documents40.
40
in clause 5.7, a recommendation for future research is made to address this deficiency
84
85
86
At the other end, as mentioned under tensioning, a tension device is fitted to allow a single
length of lifeline to be shortened to fit a number of different sized spans. This device grips the
lifeline to maintain tension under normal and fall-arrest situations. The device itself is connected
to the structure. It was discovered that in some cases, adoption of tensioning components from
other industries may not necessarily be the best design solution. One example cited was the use
of a conventional ratchet pulley. In order to be fed through the device, the lifeline had to be
abruptly bent back on itself through 180. This was found to reduce the lifelines minimum
breaking strength by 40% at that point. There was also signs of the crushing effect of the jaws of
the device upon the lifeline, which itself was felt could create a weakness. This weakening
effect could become accumulative, with the repeated gripping of the lifeline during subsequent
installations.
The dangers of bending failure were discussed, in situations where the articulation of end
terminations was restrained. The opinion was that end terminations should be free to align in
the direction that they would be pulled under fall-arrest loading.
An important issue was that of being able to provide the correct fitting to facilitate the
attachment of the HLL to the structure chosen. It was envisaged that many different forms of
structure could be used for installation a range of fittings would therefore be necessary.
4.6 INSTALLATION AND USE
Manufacturers expressed concern about the control of products. Installers of temporarilyinstalled HLLs were the users themselves, i.e. these products are installed very much akin to
other fall-arrest equipment, e.g. retractable arresters or energy absorbing lanyards; they are
attached directly to the work place structure. They are self-installed products, but like
retractable arresters or to a lesser extent, energy-absorbing lanyards, they have a great potential
for being installed incorrectly and hence not operating correctly if called on to arrest a fall.
Hence there was concern that the user will not have the same levels of competency as those who
install permanent FAS. Also with the fact that these self-installed situations could not be audited
as with the permanently-installed versions.
Another area of concern was the problem of providing protection during installation and
dismantling. Generally, temporarily-installed HLLs are needed in places where no anchoring
method is available, so it is difficult to provide fall protection during installation and removal
procedures.
Mention was also made of the danger of rearranging objects beneath the work area they may
become temporary obstacles in the path of a falling worker.
4.6.1 Attaching to structure
When asked about known problems of attaching to structures, there was little response. The
problems which the author wished to discuss with manufacturers, included:
Strength reduction of attachment loops that are knotted or hitched around columns
or beams
Slipping of attachment loops either down or off a structure
Cutting through of attachment loops, caused by sharp or abrupt edges of structure
87
Generally, there appeared to be little knowledge about these factors. However one manufacturer
knew of the above problems and had conducted tests around channels of various sizes and had
allowed strength reduction factors in their finished design. Attachment methods were also
written into their instructions for installation to prevent slippage.
Some manufacturers took the interaction between end anchor and structure very seriously,
having learnt from research and development testing, which has shown the unexpected failure
mode of the surrounding structure rather than the product itself. This has led to subsequent
testing being extended to cover substrates that systems will be installed to, so that reliance will
not just depend on product integrity, but also on the structural interface. This is a simulation of
actual in-field conditions, the environment in which the product will be expected to perform.
4.6.2 Multiple use situations
Some companies discouraged multiple use because of the following reasons:
One worker can fall and pull the others off balance, (they can be knocked off balance or
their connecting lanyard can be yanked by the deflecting lifeline).
Workers falling simultaneously or near simultaneously can impact each other with
considerable horizontal velocity, as a result of swinging into the centre of the V
deflection together.
Workers cannot pass each other when attached to lifeline unless they disconnect and
then reconnect a safety hazard.
Their solution was to have a HLL per user. This creates benefits in terms of rescue but can
create anchoring issues; if end-anchors are in the same proximity then the structure will have to
be capable of resisting the combined end loadings of each system.
4.6.3 Tensioning
Tensioning of the temporarily-installed HLL is a vital part of the installation process. It is
generally achieved by threading the rope/cable/webbing through a tensioning component which
grips it and acts as a kind of non-return valve. The rope/cable/webbing can be pulled through
so as to increase the tension in the lifeline, but it cannot slip back through in the opposite
direction, unless some kind of control is operated.
This approach is needed because of the nature of temporarily-installed HLLs. The span of the
system has to be changed to adapt each different circumstance. On one day the HLL may have
to span a 20 m gap, the next, a 8 m gap. Hence the tensioning mechanism allows the HLL to be
lengthened or shortened to suit the gap that has to be bridged.
Setting of the correct tension in the lifeline can affect how the HLL operates and what level
of loadings and distances are generated in falls, although perhaps not to such a great extent
unless large amounts of tension are applied (5 10 kN). Some manufacturers have
recognised this because over-tensioning can eat into the reserve of cable/rope/webbing
strength, which can then be a significant risk in terms of potential HLL failure. And, as HLL
spans get longer, more tension is needed to overcome the increased amount of weight. At some
point an intermediate anchor is advisable.
88
89
4.7 RESCUE
After a worker falls and is arrested by a HLL, they need to be recovered or rescued. At this
point they will be suspended from the HLL, supported by their harness. They may be in shock
and may have suffered some form of injury during the fall. Furthermore, they become subjected
to orthostatic shock, a condition in which motionless suspension can induce a retention of
blood volume in the venous system of the legs, which reduces the amount of oxygenated blood
available to the brain and other vital organs. Loss of consciousness and death ensue, so an
immediate method of rescue is vital, as part of any working at height safety plan. A thorough
review of this subject can be found in Seddon (2002).
When considering a theoretical rescue of a person who has been arrested on a single-span
temporarily-installed HLL, the first impression is that rescue would be extremely difficult.
When asked about rescue advice, and provision of equipment, some manufacturers remarked
that no rescue methods were available, and comments were made along the line of: this is a
difficult area.
The main reason for these remarks is that the deflected HLL cannot be easily accessed, even if it
was intended to be used as a means of anchoring the Rescuers41 equipment, or even if it was
intended to gain access to it, to haul in the worker. Rescue may be facilitated if there were
substantial structure above the V deflection, as this would allow a Rescuer to descend to the
Rescuee42 to effect a rescue. But such a structure may not always be in place, because one of the
main applications of the HLL is to span significant gaps in structure.
Manufacturers comments were also made to the effect that users were not asking for rescue
equipment at the moment.
Other manufacturers attitudes to rescue were different. At one time some manufacturers
recommended that users should find their own equipment, but are now analysing the problem
and are designing rescue methods and equipment to suit. One approach involves the redesign of
intermediate anchors to allow the attachment and support of rescue equipment, even after
having being stressed as a result of a fall-arrest loading.
In another approach being developed, the Rescuee is dragged back to a safe area using
equipment mounted to an end-anchor.
In yet another approach, a second HLL running parallel and in close proximity to the first, is
advocated as a rescue anchor line.
41
42
90
4.8 APPLICATIONS
Manufacturers commented on the main areas of application. The concrete decking market was
once one of the main areas of application, but now steel and wood erection is the main market,
mainly for fall-arrest applications.
Temporarily-installed HLLs that are cable-based tend to be specified in heavy industrial
conditions with arduous environments, where textile-based HLLs might be vulnerable. These
systems have less of a V deflection in a fall, but tend to have higher end-loadings, so these are
controlled by in-line energy absorbers.
There were recorded cases of tree surgeons using temporarily-installed HLLs attached to two
trees.
In some cases manufacturers were dissatisfied with the minimalist approach taken by
representatives and installers/distributors when it came to specifying the equipment that would
be attached to the HLL, especially when considering other application types, e.g. systems for
restraint. Some had a system for classifying applications and specifying equipment for each
application.
4.9 TRAINING
In a number of cases manufacturers offer no training for temporarily-installed HLLs. One
company did offer courses for temporarily-installed HLLs - they considered that end-user
installation training was vital and have tried to get courses officially accredited.
Some companies take the responsibility for advising and educating external agencies who seek
advice in regard to design and installation, e.g. civil, structural and consultant engineers. Most
of these agencies who make these approaches whilst being very professional, do not initially
understand the phenomenon of (i) the arrest force being greater than a falling persons weight,
and (ii) that this force is magnified at the end anchors. However most respond positively to the
education process.
Some companies provide training vouchers to encourage the training of users.
Whereas there were cases where provision had been made to train and audit installers of
permanently-installed HLLs, there seemed little in evidence to suggest the same provision had
been made for the temporarily-installed versions. One of the factors in this was the fact that the
installers would be the users of the product itself, and the link between users and manufacturers
is not as strong as that between installers and manufacturers. Whereas it was felt that training
should be provided to end-users, it was not clear whose responsibility it was to provide that
training.
4.10 FALL INCIDENTS
Often there is little information available to document the circumstances when a FAS does its
job and arrests a worker who has accidentally fallen. These situations may go unreported.
Three undocumented occurrences of arrested falls were divulged by one manufacturer; all were
attributed to HLLs, and all in overhead installations above vehicle bays. In each case the HLL
performed as expected. (All of these types had been thoroughly tested beforehand and all
configurations had been subjected to computer analysis).
91
In Johnson (1991), an Australian fall incident was described in which a worker fell whilst
attached to a permanently-installed HLL, which had been installed in the 1980s. The worker
was taken to hospital and apparently had suffered no injury and was back to work the following
day. The HLL was discarded and a new system was installed.
4.11 STANDARDS
Some manufacturers had the perception that BS EN 795 (1997) was not comprehensive enough
in determining test requirements and criteria, so their testing is done to exceed these
stipulations. The standard was still used for certifying purposes. Alternate test specifications
were used for newly emerging developments which BS EN 795 (1997) did not cover, nor had
anticipated. However alternate test methods were really dependant on the competency of testing
institutions in deciding whether they could be applied to grant CE certification. This did not
produce a level playing field as some manufacturers were being forced into testing to a greater
extent than others, or saw a need to do this. In effect, standards were becoming obsolete.
4.12 PRODUCT ABUSE
Main areas of product abuse known about and disclosed by manufacturers, were:
Not locking the tensioner device properly after installation allowing potential release
of lifeline in fall situation
Joining two HLLs together where one was insufficient in length to bridge the span in
question
Choke hitching the lifeline itself around the support structure (not using the anchor strap
provided)
92
93
In another case: It is important that anchor points are sufficiently strong enough. They should
be capable of withstanding 15 kN.
Installation
In one case padding is advised to be fitted between anchoring structure and HLL end loops to
avoid damaging rope. In another case a series of drawings show how the anchor fitting should
be disposed about the steel column with correct and incorrect designations. This a good
example because it shows what can go wrong and alerts the installer-user to the problem.
In one case it is advised that the lifeline itself should be wrapped around the support structure
twice, (presumably to generate friction), and secured with snap hooks through integral eyelets.
In one case, lifeline position is described as it should be positioned as high as possible above
user. In another case the lifeline position is described as it must be a minimum of 1.2 m above
the walkway. In another case there is no advice at all as to where the lifeline should be
positioned.
One tensioning procedure is described as operate tensioning handle until HLL is as taut as
possible, similarly: use one hand to tension (relying on the premise that one cannot over
tension if the effort from just one hand is used). Another procedure is more comprehensive with
diagrams, and utilises the products inbuilt tension indicator.
In one case A frame legs are described, which can be used to clamp the HLL to a girder
flange; this includes a leg for providing an intermediate support. Clamping torque loadings are
stipulated.
Attaching other fall-arrest equipment
In one case retractable arresters are allowed, providing that the rear full body harness
attachment point is used and that the maximum unextended webbing length is 1.0 m.
In some cases, apart from a special link provided, no other connection to the HLL is permitted.
In one case the energy-absorbing lanyard length is specified as having to be 2.0 m maximum.
Marking
In one case a warning label is required to be attached at the point of access. Information is to
include:
94
Most require that the HLL to be removed from service, (although not all), following a fall-arrest
loading having been applied.
In one case pre-use, regular and annual inspections are advocated, but no detail or defect
pass/fail criteria is described.
In another case, reference is made to a wear indicator. When a certain colour becomes visible,
this is the time for the HLL to be taken out of service.
Training
Training is generally required, but the onus is put on the installer-user to seek it out. In some
cases it is presented as not being compulsory, but is simply a recommendation.
Rescue
In one case rescue is referred to; no methods are prescribed but it is advised that a fall victim
should be rescued within 20 minutes of falling. In some cases there is no reference to rescue.
Rescue is generally not even alluded to in most of the instructions reviewed.
95
96
5. CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions are compiled in such a way as to address the purposes of this research, by
drawing on the findings of the review as detailed in Sections 2, 3 and 4. These sections are
based on the study of nearly 60 references, which are detailed in Section 6.
A recommendation for further work is made in clause 5.7.
5.1 KEY FACTORS IN REGARD TO DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE
A number of important factors in regard to design and performance were identified in the
research. These were highlighted in bold italics in Sections 2, 3 and 4, and are listed here in
page order for reference.
(Pages 23, 50, 56 and 57) In a fall arrest situation the lifeline is bent around certain
points as a result of the V deflection, (e.g. where the lifeline runs over or through an
intermediate anchor bracket, or where it runs through the travelling device at the bottom
of a V deflection). These points can cause the lifeline to become more severely
stressed than where the cable is in direct tension, which can significantly reduce its
strength. These stress concentrations are particularly serious where the contact area
between components is very small, and where friction is significant. Stress
concentrations should be minimised or where possible, eliminated.
(Pages 28, 32 and 33) Solvable mathematical equations cannot be obtained when
modelling complex real time dynamics such as the trajectory of a falling man being
decelerated by a HLL, due to the many factors involved. The equations can only be
solved by using an iterative solution necessitating the use of computer modelling. The
computer model, once created, has then to be verified against experimental results. This
then enables predictive calculations to be made within a certain degree of accuracy, for
subsequent analysis of different HLL configurations and fall conditions. Forces
generated in the lifeline, at anchors, on workers, and displacements can be determined.
The degree of error should be identified and should be taken into account. It may be that
the model may be improved upon to reduce the degree of error.
(Page 29) Assessing the performance envelope for HLL configurations enables limits to
be established such as:
o
o
o
o
o
97
(Page 31) Fall-arrest performance can be assessed by using a range of sizes of test mass
to represent different sizes of workers, where this has been identified as an issue. (e.g.
Canadian research used an 80 kg mass, representing a workers weight in the 50th
percentile, and a 100 kg mass, representing a workers weight in the 95th percentile. A
single 200 kg mass was used to simulate two workers falling simultaneously).
(Page 31) Tests should be carried out to simulate the method by which any rescue is to
be implemented, where additional loadings may be applied to the HLL after it has
arrested a fall, in order to ascertain that these loadings can be sustained.
(Pages 31 and 52) When retractable arresters are used in combination with HLLs there
may be a tendency for them to be affected by ratchet bounce during a fall-arrest
sequence. This effect, caused by the bouncing motion of the HLL during an arrest, can
cause repeated unlocking and re-locking of the braking mechanism, which results in the
worker being arrested several times, contributing to an excessive fall distance. This may
be dangerous especially where the free space beneath a worker is at a minimum. This
effect should be assessed for in testing. Preferably, retractable arresters for use with
HLLs should be utilised, which have anti-ratchet bounce features.
(Page 34) The reduction of forces on the person in a fall will result in lesser forces
being transmitted to the HLL and hence through to the end-anchors.
(Page 37) If a HLL is left in place after sustaining a fall-arrest loading, then the stiffness
of the HLL will certainly be at a much higher level than it was when it was originally
installed. Since stiffness has a significant effect on a HLLs capability to absorb energy,
and hence how much force is transmitted to end-anchors, it follows that in the event of a
second fall-arrest loading being applied, sufficient loadings may be generated within the
cable or at the end anchors to cause system failure, resulting in a worker falling to the
ground or other substantial platform.
In other words, any calculation or analysis made when the system was originally
installed, which was performed in order to assess loadings and system performance, will
no longer be valid, because any increase in the value of stiffness will significantly
increase the loadings transmitted through the system.
The above evidence establishes a very good reason to justify the replacement of HLLs
after being subjected to fall-arrest loadings, (apart from other safety-critical reasons).
(Page 38 and 45) The applied force in the interconnecting fall arrest equipment is
multiplied by a factor by the time it has been transmitted to the end-anchor. This is
mainly due to the fact that the sub-span in which the fall takes place is deflected into a
characteristic V shape in an attempt to resist the downward motion of the test mass.
This creates a proportionately higher tension within the HLL which, apart from the
applied load in the lanyard and other factors, is dependent on the deflection angle.
(Page 38) In research tests where the release of test mass was next to an intermediate
support, the travelling device, (karabiner in the particular case), slid down the cable
towards the centre of the V deflection during the first few rebounds. In test number
SL9LM59, for example, the test mass is recorded as slipping a horizontal distance of
1700 mm in an internal sub-span of 7.0 m length. This emphasises that free space in the
horizontal plane may be just as important as free space in the vertical plane.
98
(Page 41 and 43) When considering the simulated arrest of two or more workers by
releasing the corresponding number of test masses at different time intervals, the
dynamic response of the HLL based FAS becomes much more complex than when
considering the arrest of a single worker.
When two test masses are released so as to fall simultaneously in the same sub-span, the
maximum load recorded at end anchors may be significantly higher in comparison to
that load which is recorded when a single test mass is released in identical conditions.
When two test masses are released with a time stagger of 200 300 ms, the lanyard
load experienced by the test mass which reacts against the HLL first is similar to the
lanyard force obtained for the release of a single test mass free falling through the same
height. The second mass has to fall further than the first before reacting against the
HLL, since the cable by that time will have been pulled downwards into the
characteristic V shape, caused by the first test mass. Therefore, the second mass
experiences a higher lanyard force than the first. (It should be understood that no energy
absorbers were utilised in the tests concerned). Also at the moment of impact of the
second mass, the level of tension in the HLL may be higher due to the load induced by
the first mass.
When two test masses are released within 300 ms of each other in separate but adjacent
sub-spans, lanyard loads and end-anchor loads are similar to those obtainable when
under single test mass conditions. This is because when viewing the force-time graphs,
the force being applied by the reaction of the first test mass against the HLL has
virtually decayed by the time that the second mass starts to react.
(Pages 41 and 44) Simulated arrest of four and six workers by releasing four or six test
masses / anthropomorphic test dummies simultaneously, have been performed
previously.
(Pages 42 and 43) In-line energy absorbers can significantly reduce end-anchor
loadings, which otherwise would be substantially higher in situations where the HLL is
subjected to the simultaneous fall-arrest impact of four or six workers.
(Page 42) In a test where four test masses were released so as to fall simultaneously on
a single span HLL of 33 m span, of 12 mm 6 x 24 FC steel rope, the maximum V
deflection was 3900 mm. This, (without even considering the length of lanyard, energy
absorber extension, height of worker and safety clearance, page 58 refers), illustrates
the disadvantage of not using intermediate anchor arrangements. In addition,
significantly high loads can be generated at end-anchors of long single-span HLLs in
comparison to those supported with intermediate anchors.
(Page 43) In single span tests that simulated multiple-fall situations, it was noted that
the travelling devices slid along the cable towards the bottom of the V deflection after
the first impact, causing the masses to collide with each other.
99
(Page 43) For a given cable type and size, V deflection depends on:
o
o
o
o
o
o
Span
In-line energy absorber extension
Position of falls
Free fall heights
Number of near simultaneous falls
Weight/type of test surrogate used
100
101
102
the nature of the work place - its form, structure, geometry and materials
the task - any special risks attributable, range of movement required, space required,
duration
These issues should be considered and taken account of as early on in the planning stage as is
possible, i.e. from concept stage.
43
Required under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (1999) and PPE at Work Regulations
(1992) in order for employers and self employed people to assess health and safety risks to workers and others who
may be affected by their work or business. This enables them to identify the measures they need to take to comply
with health and safety law. It should also be noted that the forthcoming Working at Height Regulations will prescribe
a hierarchy of fall protection which will affect the choice of equipment selected.
103
Field trials, with input from those workers who will use the FAS, are essential. Technical
information, e.g. manufacturers' instructions for use and installation, together with research, test
and performance information should be evaluated. Particular reference should be made to
methods of test, the number of tests and the repeatability of results. Before purchase,
discussions should be held between the purchaser and manufacturer/supplier on aspects of use,
to determine the type of FAS to suit particular circumstances.
5.2.2 Product considerations
A temporarily-installed HLL is typically installed to stretch across any straight line horizontal
access route and its length can be adjusted to suit the workplace. It can be used to bridge and
therefore provide fall protection across gaps which have no intermediate supporting structure.
HLLs typically provide fall protection solutions in the construction industry.
A temporarily-installed HLL is repeatedly installed, used, removed after use, transported to the
next workplace or stored, and then reinstalled as necessary. They are not for permanent
installation applications.
Primary factors
Factors that should be taken into account when selecting temporarily-installed HLL, include
knowing:
that there will be a sufficient length of lifeline to allow a worker to cover the extremes
of travel in the intended work area(s);
the maximum weight of workers that will be using the equipment and the number of
workers that will be simultaneously attached is within the limitations of the equipment;
what other fall-arrest equipment is intended for attachment to the HLL and whether or
not this is (i) permissible and (ii) compatible44;
the required strength of the structure to which the HLL will be attached, taking into
account any factors of safety;
44
There are known and potential incompatibility problems when certain combinations of equipment are connected
together (see clause 5.2). Most manufacturers limit what can be connected to the HLL because of this, i.e. they
operate on the basis of what has been tested in conjunction with their HLL. Where uncertainty exists over
compatibility between equipment it is recommended that full system testing is carried out in order to identify any
undesirable characteristics.
104
105
be energy-absorbing efficient, i.e. should offer the lowest arrest force over the shortest
arrest distance. Tear-web type energy absorbers tend to give a very consistent arrest
force characteristic, but since the energy is lost over a parted strip of material they
produce an arrest distance equal to twice the torn distance. Other types tend to produce
lower levels of arrest distance but may not have such a consistent arrest force as with
the tear-web types;
have travelling devices which should not be capable of inadvertent release from the
lifeline, especially those designed to be removable at any point;
have preferably a means of fall indication;
have all ends of webbing, ropes and fittings properly finished off to prevent cuts and
abrasions to hands;
be manufactured under a recognised quality management system or other method of
ensuring quality in production;
if purchased as a proprietary system, be certified to the PPE Regulations 200245, 46.
5.3 KEY FACTORS IN REGARD TO INSTALLATION AND USE
5.3.1 Fundamental considerations
To look at, temporarily-installed HLLs are very simple. But in terms of the fall-arresting
process, they are very complex. If not installed correctly, workers who fall whilst attached to
these systems may be injured or killed.
The users of these FAS are likely also to be the installers, i.e. temporarily-installed HLL based
FAS are user-installed like some other kinds of FAS, e.g FAS based on energy-absorbing
lanyards or retractable arresters. However, the installation of HLL based FAS have more
exacting requirements and performance is much more affected by error or negligence than with
other types.
Some of the factors mentioned below are already mentioned in Section 5.2, but are repeated
here again because they also apply to those carrying out installations. Factors that should be
taken into account when installing temporarily-installed HLL, include:
45
A common misunderstanding often occurs in respect of CE certification marking which, under the PPE Regulations
2002, must be applied to all PPE sold since July 1995. The CE mark signifies that an independent Governmentapproved body (Notified Body) has established and certified that a pre-production model of the PPE in question
satisfies the relevant provisions of the above regulations. This includes a technical assessment of the PPE, to ensure
that it complies with the basic health and safety requirements of the aforementioned regulations, and examination
and testing to a relevant European standard or other specification. It is often thought that this is sufficient in that the
CE mark means that the PPE will be suitable for the particular task for which it is being purchased. This is not
necessarily the case as the testing in the relevant European standard or other specification is often limited to
checking the most important parameters under laboratory conditions and therefore may not cover the specific
circumstances of use. Therefore ensuring that the PPE product possesses the PPE CE mark is only one of the factors
involved in the selection process.
46
106
Training
Installer-users need to be trained in theoretical and practical aspects and should demonstrate
competence in how to install the particular kind of HLL. No attempt should be made to install
before training is complete.
Instructions
Instructions for installation must be read and understood. Installation should not be attempted
without this documentation.
Instructions should be explicit; generic statements should not be accepted.
If specific information is missing from instructions, or, if certain information is ambiguous or
unclear, installation should not proceed until clarified by the respective design
authority/manufacturer.
Fall-arrest performance
Temporarily-installed HLLs require dynamic predictive calculations to ensure that the particular
configuration being installed, with the particular fall-conditions envisaged, will safely arrest the
worker (s) attached to the lifeline. These calculations will usually either have to be performed
by special computer software47, or may have been pre-calculated by a manufacturer at the onset,
and will be contained in graphical or tabular format within the instructions.
No attempt should be made to install a HLL until in receipt of this information. Once in receipt,
the contents should be carefully considered, and if not understandable, or if not complete, no
work should commence until the matter is clarified.
If graphical or tabular information does not contain the specific configuration details or fallconditions applicable to the situation in hand, then no attempt to extrapolate or interpolate48
information should be made, unless authorised to do so by the instructions. A common example
of this is where the interconnecting fall arrest equipment to be attached cannot be found within
the table. The table may refer to certain kinds of equipment, e.g. energy-absorbing lanyards of a
certain type and length, and the conditions at the start of a potential fall. But they may not refer
to the specific type of energy-absorbing lanyard to be attached, nor its specific length, nor the
specific conditions at the start of a potential fall. Or, the instructions may allow types of
interconnecting fall arrest equipment to be attached other than energy-absorbing lanyards, but
may omit the performance information about this in the table.
Information should not be guessed at. Any omissions or uncertainties should be clarified with
the design authority/manufacturer.
Factors that affect the performance of a FAS based on a HLL, in terms of how it is configured,
and the fall conditions that are applicable at the beginning of any potential fall circumstance, are
detailed in Section 2.
47
The numbers of factors in such calculations make the equations insolvable; multiple iterations are performed by
computer to find the correct solution
48
To estimate a value beyond the values already known or to estimate a value between values already known.
107
Particular attention should be given to the weight of workers, the number of workers to be
attached at any one time, free fall, and the equipment they are planning to use to connect
themselves to the HLL. Results from calculations should reflect the maximum weight of
workers, the effects if they all fall simultaneously, actual free fall conditions and the type of
interconnection equipment between HLL and harness.
Calculations should also consider, especially in the case of three or more attached workers, the
case where one worker has fallen, and has stretched the HLL into the V shape, and the other
two or more fall slightly later. The fall distances for these latter fallers will be greater than that
for the first, and when they impact the HLL they will possess greater amounts of energy. This
will require a greater extension of the connected fall-arrest equipment than that required of the
first faller, and may apply greater end-anchor loadings, or both.
The degree of accuracy of any calculation should be given, as no calculation is expected to be
100% accurate.
Simple, static-load type calculations based on catenaries49 should not be used to predict
performance of these systems. These types of calculations cannot give accurate answers as they
omit key factors from the calculation. They are particularly prone to error in regard to
calculating fall distances.
Anchor strength
Once the end-anchor loadings generated by the potential fall-conditions of the particular
configuration of FAS are known, then the structure to which the HLL is going to be installed to
can be assessed for strength. Consideration should be given to any recommended factor of
safety that the manufacturer recommends. Assessment of the structure should be made by a
competent person, e.g. a structural engineer, i.e. someone who through training and
understanding of engineering, can assess, by calculation, test or other appropriate analysis,
whether a particular structure is capable of withstanding the loads that will be imposed on it.
It is extremely dangerous simply to estimate or to guess whether a structure will support a load
or not. Temporarily-installed HLLs are engineered safety systems and an engineering type
approach must be taken in these circumstances, or else there will be no guarantee that the
structure will support a worker during a fall-arrest incident.
Anchor height
Once the results of calculations generated by the potential fall-conditions of the particular
configuration of FAS are known, then the area in which the HLL is going to be installed can be
assessed to see if there is sufficient vertical free space underneath, in order to arrest the
worker(s) safely in the case of a fall-arrest event, (Clause 3.5.7 refers).
Again, it is extremely dangerous to simply guess at or estimate this quantity. The test incident in
clause 3.5.7 makes this clear. The quantity has to be determined by using a sound engineering
basis.
Generally, the HLL should be installed in an overhead position to minimise free fall conditions
which will in turn limit the amount of required free space.
49
Standard type formulas to determine static loads in cables hung between two points, e.g. along railway lines, for
cable cars, or between electricity pylons.
108
50
The manufacturer should be contacted in the first instance in regard to determining the resistance of the product to
failure over edge conditions. The manufacturer may be unable to provide this information due to the large number
and variety of edges that are possible. Also the current standards that control the design of fall-arrest equipment do
not specify any fall-simulation testing over edges. However test methods can be devised to demonstrate the resistance
to failure over edge conditions. Results of such tests should report test parameters: edge type, included edge angle,
test surrogate, lifeline specification, free fall, swing fall angle, arrest force and distance, ultimate failure load. The
test parameters should be for conditions that are at least as severe as the actual application.
109
110
Longer span products should be sought from manufacturers as the first step to solving the
problem. If this is not acceptable, joining by any method must not take place without the
manufacturers permission, as this will affect product integrity51, fall-arrest performance and
anchor strength requirements.
Tensioning
Only the supplied components and instructions should be used to perform the tensioning
operation. If the instructions are inadequate or are not clear, points should be clarified before
installation commences. HLLs should not be over tensioned, as this can lead to excessive endanchor loadings.
Tensioning devices should be locked in some way, to prevent tampering.
Attaching fall-arrest equipment to the HLL
Attaching to the HLL should only be done via the travelling device (which may be a simple
karabiner or other fitting). Attaching via any method other than stipulated by the manufacturer
should not be used, as it could severely weaken the HLL in a fall incident, (refer to amateur
fabrications sub-section in clause 3.5.4).
Fall-arrest equipment, whether it is energy absorbing lanyards, retractable arresters or ropegrabs, should only be attached to the HLL with the approval of the HLL manufacturer. This is
vital because the attachment of such equipment has a direct and significant affect on:
FAS performance, i.e. end-anchor load, system loads and fall distances. Such an
attachment has to be taken account of in the calculations or else it will not be known
whether a system is safe or not.
Interaction/compatibility some equipment can be incompatible with the HLL. For
example, the performance of some manufacturers energy absorbing lanyards may not
be suitable for connection to a particular HLL. Also, retractable arresters can have a
locking/arresting problem when attached to HLLs (ratchet bounce - clauses 3.3.3, 3.5.4
and 3.7.2 refer).
Functioning in some circumstances when retractable arresters are attached to HLLs, it
may be difficult for the travelling device to be pulled along the HLL in response to
worker movement. This causes an excess amount of the arresters lifeline to be
extracted, and can lead to excessive pendulum-swing falls.
51
Splicing of cable or rope, or sewing of webbing to produce joints in temporarily-installed HLLs is not
recommended, due the vulnerability of the joint in the arduous conditions that these FAS are typically used in, and
the degree of stress concentration imposed on a joint if fall arrest forces are applied in the immediate vicinity or
directly over the joint.
111
Some manufacturers limit52 the types of equipment that can be fitted to their HLL. If in doubt,
the equipment should not be used. If retractable arresters are needed, and information about
their use is not clear, systems tests should be performed to make sure that they can work
properly in the configuration of HLL to be installed. Preferably, retractable arresters with
special anti-ratchet bounce features should be used.
Generally, where energy absorbing lanyards are used, they should be as short as possible, to
minimise free fall conditions.
Pre-use checks/action after fall
All pre-use checks should be carried out in accordance with manufacturers instructions.
Equipment must be withdrawn from service if there is any doubt as to its condition for safe use.
Equipment must be withdrawn from use after having sustained a fall-arrest loading. Structure to
which the HLL was attached should also be checked.
5.4 KEY FACTORS IN REGARD TO MAINTENANCE
5.4.1 General considerations
A product such as a temporary-installed HLL, which undergoes frequent repeated cycles of
installation/de-installation/reinstallation, in all kinds of outdoor environments, and in heavy
industrial conditions, and given its safety critical nature, would certainly need a regular planned
preventative maintenance programme. This programme would probably be carried out at 3
monthly or even monthly intervals, depending on the durability of the design in question.
Manufacturers maintenance schedules and instructions should be considered: any significant
departure from them should be discussed with the manufacturers or their authorised agent, (refer
clause 3.7.1 under ongoing maintenance).
5.4.2 Fundamental considerations
An effective system of maintenance is essential to make sure that equipment continues to
provide the degree of protection for which it was designed. Key factors that should be addressed
in regard to maintenance, include:
the need for regular examinations, to different depths as appropriate. The safety of
workers depends upon the continued efficiency and durability of the equipment (e.g
Figure 21).
52
The performance-testing of FAS is a critical aspect of verifying whether a particular system design is capable of
safely arresting a worker. During testing, the behaviour of the particular design is assessed for arresting capability
under simulated fall conditions and for strength and other criteria in laboratory conditions. Each aspect of test
behaviour has strict limits for the purposes of safeguarding life and preventing injury. Based on the results from
testing, manufacturers impose limitations, apply criteria and make recommendations for the use of their equipment. It
is essential that these limitations, criteria and recommendations are strictly adhered to. If FAS are used in potential
fall conditions outside of manufacturers limitations or recommendations it is unlikely that performance will be
known because those situations may have not been simulated by previous testing, or they may have been identified in
previous testing as hazardous for workers.
112
113
To look at, temporarily-installed HLLs seem very simple. But this perceived simplicity belies
the complexity of the design and installation process required in order to verify that if and when
a HLL is called on to arrest a fall, then it will do so in such a manner as:
to apply an arresting force to the worker(s) who fall of a limited magnitude and in such
a way as to not to kill or seriously injure the worker(s)
to avoid causing failure of any part of the FAS or anchoring structure, thus causing the
worker(s) to be forcibly disconnected from their protection and allowing a fall to the
ground
to ensure that the extension of the HLL, plus that of any connecting fall-arrest
equipment, is less than the vertical space beneath the HLL on site, to prevent the
worker(s) from colliding with the ground before the fall is stopped by the FAS
to ensure that any horizontal swinging displacement of the worker that may occur
during a fall is less than the available obstruction-free space in the horizontal plane
All of the factors mentioned in clauses 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 apply to this kind of design and
installation, and so should be taken into account if it is wished to pursue such a project. The
reader is also encouraged to read and thoroughly digest the technical information contained in
Sections 2, 3 and 4 of this report. In the final analysis, it may be much easier, quicker and more
economical to purchase one of the proprietary systems available in the market place.
5.5.2 Specific considerations
From the information contained within Sections 2, 3 and 4 of this report, it should be clear that
design and installation of HLLs is not just a matter of stringing up some randomly chosen rope
in an improvised manner, and in the process relying on a good degree of guesswork. HLLs are
engineered systems and require engineering disciplines and approaches in order to ensure that
they will perform as intended. This involves consideration of the following:
Legal aspects
There is a system of control for the design, testing, manufacture, installation and use of safety
equipment in the UK, (see clause 3.7.1). Some of the information referred to may not be
applicable if the HLL in question is not intended for sale, but nevertheless there is a great deal
which does apply.
Standards and official guidance
British standards BS 7883, BS EN 795, BS EN 365, BS 8437 (a draft standard, currently) and
HSG 33 have an important bearing on the design and installation of HLLs (refer to clauses 3.7.3
and 3.7.4).
Parameters that affect performance
There are several parameters which affect the performance of a FAS based on a HLL which
need to be understood. A change to any single parameter affects the overall performance, and
this is why HLL performance is so complex. Factors include:
114
Elastic properties of the HLL, interconnecting fall-arrest equipment, (whether energyabsorbing lanyard, or other) and harness
Amount of free fall (where the fall starts in relation to the level of the HLL)
Number of workers who fall, and whether they fall simultaneously or at staggered
intervals (i.e. with an appreciable time difference)
115
Determining the total amount of horizontal displacement so that the required amount of
obstruction free space, before a fall occurs, can be established
Fall simulation analysis to determine fall arrest loadings and arrest distances is usually
performed by using specially written computer software, the accuracy of which has been
determined by comparison with known test results. Static analyses, although relatively easy to
perform, cannot be relied on to give accurate results. In fact they can produce dangerous
misleading results, e.g clause 3.5.7.
Design detail
Special attention should be given to the choice of:
Rope/cable/webbing construction
See especially but not exclusively clauses 3.2.2, 3.5.4, 3.5.5, 3.5.6, 3.5.7, 3.7.2, 3.7.3, 4.2, 4.3,
4.5.1, and 4.6.
The welding of components which will be subjected to dynamic loadings is not advised, unless
particular attention is paid to them during their production. Proof loading may be required to
verify successful heat treatment.
Testing
Various full scale testing needs to be carried out:
Dynamic testing, to verify design, performance, calculations, compatibility issues and to
detect any deficiency. The complete FAS should be tested, in all configurations for use
and in the worst fall-arrest conditions. Components should not be tested in isolation.
Static testing, and tests to destruction to verify reserves of strength, mode of failure and
factors of safety. Attachment of rescue equipment and the loads imposed may have to
be considered. Again, components should not be tested in isolation, e.g. clauses 3.2.2
and 3.5.4.
Other miscellaneous testing such as effect of environment, corrosion resistance, etc
Testing can be used to verify individual configurations and fall condition arrangements.
However tests results from one configuration cannot be used to automatically verify another
configuration. Extrapolation and interpolation of results is not advised, since relationships
between the quantities involved do not obey a linear law.
116
The parameters that affect the performance of a HLL and how changing those
parameters can change performance and alter risk
Test results
Limitations, particularly but not exclusively: maximum weight and permitted number of
attached workers, minimum and maximum span, maximum load allowed in HLL
Selection techniques, to assess whether a products features meet the need of the
particular application and environment in which the product is to be employed
Aspects of rescue and rescue techniques that will be used to rescue workers who fall
The making of anchor connections and system connections and the dangers of not doing
this correctly
117
118
6. REFERENCES
ANSI A10.14 American National Standard for Construction and Demolition Operations
Requirements for Safety Belts, Harnesses, Lanyards and Lifelines for Construction and
Demolition Use (1991), American National Standards Institute, National Safety Council,
Itasca IL 60143-3201.
Arteau, J. and Lan, A. (1992) Use of Horizontal Lifelines in Structural Steel Erection,
Proceedings of the Conference on Protective Equipment, May 3-5 1992, Ottawa, Canadian
Council on Protective Equipment.
Arteau, J. and Lan, A. (1994) Use of Horizontal Lifelines in Structural Steel Erection,
Proceedings of the International Fall Protection Symposium, October 27-28 1994, San
Diego, California, International Society for Fall Protection, Toronto.
AS/NSZ 1891.2 Australian/New Zealand Standard - Industrial Fall-Arrest Systems and Devices
Part 2: Horizontal Lifeline and Rail Systems and Supplement 1: Prescribed Configurations
for Horizontal Lifelines (2001), Standards Australia, Sydney Head Office, New South Wales,
Australia.
BS 1397 - British Standard Specification for Safety Belts and Harness (1947), British Standards
Institution, London.
BS EN 365 Personal Protective Equipment Against Falls From a Height General
Requirements for Instructions for Use and for Marking (1993), British Standards Institution,
London.
BS EN 795 Protection Against Falls From a Height Anchor Devices - Requirements and
Testing (1997), British Standards Institution, London.
BS 7883 Code of Practice for Application and Use of Anchor Devices Conforming to BS EN
795 (1997), British Standards Institution, London.
BS 8437 Draft Code of Practice for the Selection, Use and Maintenance of Personal Fall
Protection Systems and Equipment for Use in the Workplace (2003), DPC: 03/101170 DC,
British Standards Institution, London.
Caisse Nationale de LAssurance Maladie Note technique No 167 (1980) Harnais de Securite
2 Note pour la Determination des cables de securite utilises en montage-levage. (National
State Health Insurance Office Technical Note 167 (1980) Safety Harnesses 2 - Note to
Determine Safety Cables used in Lifting-up/Raising). Caisse Nationale de LAssurance
Maladie, INRS Note No 1241-98-80, Paris.
CEBTP Test Report No. 672.6.166 (1984) Centre Experimental de Recherches et detudes du
Batiment et des Travaux Publics, Paris
Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR, Part 1910.66, Appendix C, Personal Fall Arrest Systems
(1996), U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C.
Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR, Part 1926.500, Subpart M, Appendix E, Personal Fall
Arrest Systems (1996), U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C.
119
Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations (1996), Statutory Instrument 1996 No.
1592, The Stationery Office Ltd, London.
Council Directive 89/686/EEC (1989) on the Approximation of the Laws of the Member States
Relating to PPE, Official Journal of the European Communities L 399 [32] 18-37.
Cloe, W. W. and Breslin, P. B. (1979) Occupational Fatalities related to Roofs, Ceilings and
Floors as Found in Reports of OSHA Fatality/Catastrophe Investigations, Report No
OSHA/RP-80/003, Office of Statistical Studies & Analysis, Directorate of Technical Support,
U S Dept of Labor/OSHA, Washington D.C. 20210.
Corbeil, J. F., Arteau, J. and Lan, A. (1996) Static and Dynamic Testing of Tubular Sections in
Bending Collapse: Experimental Model, Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on
Experimental Mechanics, Society for Experimental Mechanics, Nashville, 10-13 June 1996.
CSA Sixth Draft of Flexible Horizontal Lifeline Systems Standard (1999), Canadian Standards
Association, Ontario, Canada.
Dayawansa, P. H., Goh, C. C. and Wilkie, R. (1989) Analysis and Testing of a Static Line
System, Report No MRL/CN8/89/001, BHP Melbourne Research Laboratories, Victoria,
Australia.
Dayawansa, P. H. and Ralph, R. (1996) Testing of Static Line Systems Test Results, BHP
Research Report No BHPR/SM/R/026, BHP Melbourne Research Laboratories, Victoria,
Australia.
Dayawansa, P. H. and Ralph, R. (1997) Tests on Static Line Systems, Steel Construction, 31
[2] 2-26.
Dirscherl C. (2004) W-DOC 2004-04 Private e-mail between C Dirscherl, 89/686/EEC PPE
Directive Manager of the European Commission and Safety Squared.
Drabble F. (1995) Report on Horizontal Lifeline Testing, Grange Dynamics, UK (unpublished).
Drabble F. and Brookfield, D. J. (1998), Numerical Modelling of Fall Arresting Systems,
Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference on Mechanics in Design, The Nottingham
Trent University, Nottingham, Great Britain, 6-9 July 1998.
Ellis J. N. (1993) Which Fall Protection System Should be Used? in Jaron, B. B. (ed.) (1993)
Introduction to Fall Protection 2nd edn, pp 107-111, ASSE, Des Plaines, Illinois.
European Commission Communication 2000/C 40/05 in the framework of the implementation
of Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 in relation to personal protective
equipment (2000), Official Journal of the European Communities C40 p8, February 12, 2000.
Feathers L. J. (1998) Private communication between L J Feathers, independent consultant of L
& G Associates and Safety Squared.
Finch A. (2003) Private communication between A Finch, DTI, and Safety Squared.
Fuller, G. A., Jackson C. M., Rice, R. C. and Jentgen, R. L. (1980) Evaluation of Wire Alloys
for Aircraft Carrier Arresting Gear, Proceedings of the 50th Annual Convention of the Wire
Association International Inc Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, Oct 1980.
120
Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) (19th edn.), Controller and Chief Executive of Her
Majestys Stationery Office and Queens Printer of Acts of Parliament, London.
Health and Safety Commission (2003) Consultation Document 192 Proposals for Work at
Height Regulations [online], Health and Safety Commission. Available from:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd192.htm [Accessed December 4 2003].
Health and Safety Executive (1985) Deadly Maintenance A Study of Fatal Accidents at Work,
HSE Books, Health and Safety Executive, Suffolk CO10 2WA.
HSG 33 Health and Safety in Roofwork (1998), HSE Books, Health and Safety Executive,
Suffolk.
Health and Safety Laboratory (2002) Assessment of Factors That Influence the Tensile Strength
of Safety Harness and Lanyard Webbings Part 1 - Main Report, Report No HSL/2002/16,
Health and Safety Laboratory, Buxton, United Kingdom.
INDG 367 Inspecting Fall Arrest Equipment made from Webbing or Rope (2002), HSE
Books, Health and Safety Executive, Suffolk.
ISO/CD 16024 Personal Protective Equipment for Protection Against Falls from a Height
Flexible Horizontal Lifeline Systems - Document Reference No. ISO/TC 94/SC4 N251 (1999),
International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Johnson B. (1991) Private communication between B Johnson, at the time Managing Director of
P. A. Safety Systems Pty Ltd. and D Riches, Technical Director of Barrow Hepburn Sala Ltd.
Lobert H (2004) Results on drop tests Energy absorber with lanyard, 12mm diameter, total
length 2 m, fall factor 1. Deutsche Montan Technologie GmbH, Pruflaboratorium fir
Bautreilsicherheit, D-44807 Bochum, Germany.
Management of Health and Safety at Work at Work Regulations (1999) & Guidance L21, HSE
Books, Health and Safety Executive, Suffolk.
Monks K.E. (1990) A Report on Detail Tests on Horizontal Lifeline Sample Ropes, Nuclear
Electric Report No TD/BNL/REP/341, September 1990, Structural Test Centre, Nuclear
Electric plc, Cheddar, Somerset, UK.
Monks K.E. (1991) A Report on Horizontal Lifeline Testing, Nuclear Electric Report No
TD/BNL/REP/386, August 1991, Structural Test Centre, Nuclear Electric plc, Cheddar,
Somerset, UK.
National Engineering Laboratory (2004) Archived U-matic Tape Footage DVD No.3, TUV
NEL, East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK.
Occupational Health and Safety Administration (1999) OSHA Preambles Fall Protection in
the Construction Industry III Summary and Explanations [online], OSHA. Available from:
http://www.osha-slc.gov/Preamble/Fall_data/ [Accessed July 19 1999].
Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations (1992) & Guidance L25, HSE Books,
Health and Safety Executive, Suffolk.
Personal Protective Equipment (EC Directive) Regulations (1992), Statutory Instrument 1992
No. 3139, The Stationery Office Ltd, London.
121
Personal Protective Equipment Regulations (2002), Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 1144, The
Stationery Office Ltd, London.
prEN 365 (2003) Final Draft - Personal Protective Equipment Against Falls From a Height General Requirements for Instructions for Use, Maintenance, Periodic Examination, Repair,
Marking and Packaging European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels.
Queensland Government Workplace Health and Safety Queensland Static Line Fall Arrest
Systems (2002), Department of Industrial Relations, Queensland Government, Australia.
Riches D. (1992a) LIFE Horizontal Lifeline Analysis Program Instructions for Use, Barrow
Hepburn Sala Ltd, Bristol, UK.
Riches D. (1992b) Sayfglida Lecture Notes, DBI Sala, February 12-13 1992, Barrow Hepburn
Sala Ltd, Bristol, UK.
Riches D. (1997) Some design principles of horizontal fall protection systems, Safety and
Health Practitioner, 15 [6] 17-21.
Riches D. (1998) Fall Protection in Tullet S. (ed) (1998) Health and Safety at Work, pp F2
F5, Croner Publications Ltd, Surrey.
Riches, D. and Feathers, L. J. (1998) Research, Development and Testing of Multiple Span
Multiple Use Horizontal Lifelines from the Designers Perspective Proceedings of the
International Fall Protection Symposium, Wuppertal, Germany, International Society for Fall
Protection, Toronto.
Riches D. (2002) Analysis and evaluation of different types of test surrogate employed in the
dynamic performance testing of fall arrest equipment, Contract Research Report No
411/2002, Health and Safety Executive, HSE Books, Suffolk, UK.
Riches D. (2003) Private e-mail between D Riches, CEN/TC 160 WG1 Convenor, and M-C
Heloire, CEN PPE Standards.
Seddon P. (2002) Harness Suspension: Review and Evaluation of Existing Information,
Contract Research Report No 451/2002, Health and Safety Executive, HSE Books, Suffolk,
UK.
Shand T. G. (1960) The Design of Modern Safety Belts and Their Uses, British Journal of
Industrial Safety, 5 [51] 7-9.
Steinberg H. L. (1977) A Study of Personal Fall-Safety Equipment, Report No NBSIR 76-1146,
National Bureau of Standards, Dept of Commerce, Washington D.C. 20234.
Sulowski, A. C. and Miura, N. (1983) Horizontal Lifelines, Report No 83-294-H, Mechanical
Research Dept, Ontario Hydro Research Division, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sulowski, A. C. (1991) Fall Arresting Systems Selection of Equipment in Sulowski A. C.
(ed.) (1991) Fundamentals of Fall Protection pp 303-320, International Society for Fall
Protection, Toronto.
Wolner T. (1992) Private communication between T Wolner, at the time Senior Engineer of
DBI Sala Inc. and D Riches, Technical Director of Barrow Hepburn Sala Ltd.
122
7. APPENDIX:
123
Table 11
List of archived cine film
No.
Contents / comments
Simulations of falls away from wood pole with dummy wearing work
positioning belt-sit harness and connected by strap. View is
perspective rather than elevation. Dummy is orange in colour with
back skull cover; accelerometer cable is plugged into back of skull.
Variation of pre-release posture. Of interest to HSE research.
Transferred to DVD No 1.
124
Table 11
List of archived cine film
No.
Contents / comments
Cine film:
Test Nos 1BB, 4CC,
4CA, 4CD
Cine film:
Test Nos 8B A01 and
8C A01
Cine film:
Inertia brake test on
pylons
10
11
125
Table 12
List of archived U-matic tapes
No.
Contents / comments
12
17/6/87 U-matic:
Drop tests
Choke hitch tests performed over L section. Not high speed film,
only video. Close up of karabiner failing on girder. Relevant to HSE
edge research. Transferred to DVD No 2.
13
22/5/85 U-matic:
Comparison drops of
safety belts &
harnesses Telecine
14
27/11/90 U-matic:
Harness testing in
Stephenson building
15
U-matic:
Stockland hill slow
motion sequences
16
17/6/82 U-matic:
Drop tests on ladder
fall arrest systems and
various harness /
lanyard combinations
17
26/4/84 U-matic:
Tower maintenance
and inspection
18
19
15/12/82 U-matic:
Rugby dummy tests
Drop tests simulating falls from a tower using ladder mounted fall
arrest system and dummy. Shows leg interference problems with
tower and effects of using waist side Dee on belt. Also shows tests
using small inertia reel attached to harness. Very relevant to HSE
research. Transferred to DVD No 2.
20
3/1/84 U-matic:
Rugby dummy tests
re-edit
126
Table 12
List of archived U-matic tapes
No.
Contents / comments
21
28/8/87 U-matic:
Construction Steel
Tests three tapes
22
Table 13
List of archived video tapes
No.
Contents / comments
23
1989 Video:
Lanyard tests
24
29/3/90 Video:
Tree climbers sit belts
& harnesses.
25
Video
Secam harness tests
26
Video
Hanging in harness
Dr Amphoux
127
ISBN 0-7176-2892-2
RR 266
20.00
9 78071 7 628926