Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HLL Basic Calculation - Final PDF
HLL Basic Calculation - Final PDF
Introduction
This article uses two worked examples to illustrate the fundamental design approach and calculations
of a Horizontal Lifeline (HLL) systems based on the design code Canadian Standards Association
Z259.16. The upcoming Singapore Standard on Specification for Design of Active Fall Protection
Systems is based on the CSA Z259.16. The authors are members of the Working Group for this
upcoming Singapore Standard.
Non-manufactured HLL systems more widely used than Manufactured HLL systems
HLLs can be permanent or temporary, and either a manufactured or non-manufactured system.
Manufactured fall arrest system refers to a complete system designed by a manufacturer. In contrast,
non-manufactured system refers to a system that is not designed by a manufacturer but may or may
not be designed by a Professional Engineer.
Non-manufactured systems are usually assembled from separate fall arrest system components and
can be from different manufacturers.
Non-manufactured systems are more commonly used than manufactured systems in the Singapore
construction industry (Hoe, Goh, et al. 2012). However, non-manufactured systems are more
vulnerable to component incompatibility and require more considerations to ensure effectiveness of
the system.
A properly designed HLL protects users and complies with the legal
requirements
Common design mistakes
The purpose of a HLL (or any other fall arrest system) is to minimize injury to the users in the event of
a fall. Two common mistakes designers make are
1)
2)
only considering the strength aspects of the anchorages and the HLL components but
neglecting to evaluate the effects on the user(s) e.g. Maximum Arrest Force (MAF), and
using static analysis that ignored the dynamic force component generated in a fall.
These mistakes had led to strength requirements being grossly underestimated and critical safety
factors being neglected in the design (Wang, Hoe, et al. 2014).
system components and its anchorages are of adequate strength to withstand the
Maximum Arrest Load (MAL) or Maximum Arrest Force (MAF) to prevent failure;
Maximum Arrest Force (MAF) experienced by the user(s) is within acceptable limits to
minimize the probability of injuries;
clearance height required in a fall is less than clearance available to prevent the user(s)
from hitting the ground or an obstruction in the fall path.
Before a fall
Figure 2: Common example of HLL
HLL Configuration
Rope diameter
10mm
55.8GPa
3.4N/m
10m
Pretension Force
Ti
1kN
si
li
wL
8T 1
=L 1+
= 3.142
wL
2T
8 s
3 L
10
4
(3.4)(10)
8(1 10 ) 1
= 10 1 +
(3.4)(10)
2(1 10 )
8 42.506 10
3
10
78.550mm2
= 42.506 10 m
10.0004818m
Unstressed HLL
cable length
lo
T
1 +
AE
10.0004818
1 10
1+
(78.55 10 )(55.8 10 )
9.998200715m
l L =
10.0004818 10 = (49.082155 10 )m
To continue our analysis, we have to make some assumptions on the personal fall arrest system.
Personal Fall Arrest System
Fmax
6kN
xmax
1.75m
Favg
4.8kN
User(s) weight
100kg
0.5m
Lanyard length
PEA: Personal Energy Absorber
Ly
2m
We can now calculate the Free Fall (FF) experienced by the user,
FF = h + s
The users fall is now being arrested. Energy analysis is used as per CSA Z259.16 Clause 9.3.3.
Stage 2.1: Kinetic energy generated in the fall will be absorbed by the elongation or sagging of the HLL
cable (beyond cusp sag). This midpoint sagging, s, will continue until the force in the lanyard, F, reaches
the deployment force of the lanyards Personal Energy Absorber (PEA).
Stage 2.2: At the PEAs deployment force, the PEA will deploy and is assumed to be solely responsible
for the absorption of the energy generated by the falling user (HLL assumed to stop extending in this
stage).
s=
l=
(l L )
L 4s
T
k
F = 4T
s
l
T = kx
0.3
0.5
0.55
0.551 0.5515
0.052
0.062
0.062
0.062
8.67
22.65
27.23
27.32
27.37
1.04
4.51
5.95
5.99
6.00
Stage 3: When F reaches the PEA deployment force, the PEA deploys. The sagging of the HLL has
already absorbed UHLL and the PEA will absorb UPEA as it extends xPEA.
However, as the PEA is extending, energy is also being generated in addition to the energy generated
during the free fall. This energy generated by the falling user over the total fall distance (hTFD), Uw and
the initial energy stored in the HLL at cusp sag, UHLLo has to be completely absorbed for the user to
come to a stop.
To analyse this, we start with an arbitrary value for xPEA then iterate xPEA until the remaining fall energy
Uk = 0. Before we do that, we have to calculate the following parameters.
HLL Rope Modulus kHLL =
Energy Stored in
HLL at cusp sag
Energy absorbed
by HLL elongation
AE
l
UHLLo =
UHLL =
(78.55 10 )(55.8 10 )
9.998200715
438.388kN/m
0.00kN-m
1
(438.388)(0.054)
2
0.64 kN-m
1
(438.388)(49.082155 103 )
2
For clearance calculations, the PEA average deployment force, Favg should now be used instead as per
CSA Z259.16 Clause 7.3.3.2.
= FF s + s + x
= F
U = Wh
U =U +U
=F
0.3
0.6
0.55
0.56
3.352
3.652
3.602
3.612
3.29
3.58
3.53
3.54
1.44
2.88
2.64
2.69
0.99
-0.15
0.04
0.0
The fall energy has been fully absorbed by the HLL and PEA and the fall is now been completely
arrested. (Note: A situation can arise when there is fall energy remaining even after the PEA has
extended to its maximum length i.e. the capacity of the PEA is exceeded and the PEA has bottomedout.)
Results of Analysis
Workplace Safety and Health (Work At Heights) Regulation 11(2)(b) requires the fall arrest system to
have enough fall clearance available to prevent the user from hitting an object, the ground or other
surfaces.
This fall clearance includes the harness and D-ring slide during the fall, xw and a clearance margin (also
known as safety distance), E. We will assume xw to be 0.3m for a harness using normal webbing.
The clearance margin (as per CSA Z259.16 8.2.6.2),
E= 0.6 + 0.1(s s ) = 0.6 + 0.1(0.5515 49.082155 103 ) = 0.650m
Let us review the analysis results against the essential design criteria for an effective HLL.
Summary of Results
Remarks
= 4.562m
= Fmax = 6kN
Since the capacity of the PEA was not exceeded in this fall,
the forces on the user is limited (as required by WSH WAH
Reg 11(2)(a)) to an acceptable 6kN as specified in CSA
Z259.16 Clause 6.4.2.2.
= T = 27.37kN
1.75
2.25
2.75
Applying the lumping factor of 1.75 for 2 falling users, the following parameters and assumptions are
adjusted as follows.
Personal Fall Arrest Systems
User(s) weight
100kg x 1.75 =
175Kg
Fmax
6kN x 1.75 =
10.5kN
4.8kN x 1.75 =
8.4kN
We now use the above adjusted values to analyse for a 2-users fall. We iterate s until F = adjusted F max
of 10.5kN
s=
l=
(l L )
L 4s
T
k
F = 4T
s
l
T = kx
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.66
0.667
0.6675
10.05
10.127
10.072
10.087
10.089
10.089
0.052
0.129
0.074
0.089
0.090
0.091
22.65
56.54
32.24
38.81
39.62
39.68
4.51
17.87
7.68
10.16
10.48
10.50
Again, we now iterate for xPEA until the fall energy is totally absorbed i.e. Uk = 0.
1
= FF s + s + x
= F
U = Wh
U =U +U
=F
0.5
0.55
0.545
3.668
3.718
3.713
6.30
6.38
6.37
4.20
4.62
4.58
0.30
-0.03
0.00
=h
The clearance required for the last user to fall (as per CSA Z259.16 Clause 8.2.7)
C = 1.6C
0.6C
Using the same methodology as above and applying different lumping factors, 3 and 4-user falls can
also be analysed. The results are summarized as follows.
Comparison of Results
1-user
2-users
2.549
3-users
4-users
4.562
4.743
4.834
4.913
27.37
39.68
46.90
53.62
41.06
59.52
70.35
80.43
Energy absorbers incorporated in-line with the HLL where balance sag analysis will apply.
Multiple-span HLLs where the slack from the other spans will be pulled into the span where
the user fell before the HLL begins to tension up, affecting the cusp sag. The rope modulus will
also decrease with the longer length of wire rope used.
HLLs are anchored to flexible end anchorages instead of rigid end anchorages.
Conclusion
HLLs are commonly used to protect workers and minimize injuries to users in a fall. However, strength
requirements were often grossly underestimated and critical safety factors were neglected due to
common design mistakes.
A properly designed HLL needs to minimize injury to the user and to comply with the relevant legal
requirements. Thus the design criterion need to consider the Maximum Arrest Force (MAF) to the user,
the Maximum Arrest Load (MAL) to the anchors and the clearance height required.
This article demonstrated using energy balance approach to evaluate the above-mentioned design
criterion for a single-span HLL system based on the design code CSA Z259.16. A 1-user fall was first
analysed followed by a 2-user fall.
It is hoped that this article can raise awareness of the various parameters that designers should take
into consideration in their design and evaluation of horizontal lifeline systems.
Acknowledgement
The authors have attended the Qualified Fall Protection Engineer course by Engineer Greg Small and
his co-trainers in North America. The calculations described herein are based on an Excel template
created by Er. Small.
References
Ministry of Manpower (2013) Occupational Safety and Health Division Annual Report 2012
http://mom.gov.sg/Documents/safety-health/reports-stats/OSHDAR2012/OSHD_AR2012_part1.pdf
Canadian Standards Association (2004) Z259.16-04 Design of Active Fall-Protection Systems Ontario:
Canadian Standards Association
Goh, Y.M., 2014. An Empirical Investigation of the Average Deployment Force of Personal Fall Arrest
Energy Absorbers. J. Constr. Eng. and Manage. - Am. Soc. of Civ. Eng. (published online).
Hoe, Y. P., Goh, Y. M., Sim, S. Y. (2012) Design of Fall Arrest Systems: A Review of the Current Issues in
the Singapore Construction Industry. CIB W099 International Conference on Modelling and
Building Health and Safety 10-11 September 2012, Singapore
Wang, Q., Hoe, Y. P., Goh, Y. M. (2014) Evaluating the Inadequacies in Horizontal Lifeline Designs: Case
Studies in Singapore. CIB W099 International Conference on Achieving Sustainable
Construction Health and Safety, 2-3 June 2014, Lund, Sweden