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.
A HLL is a component that extends horizontally from one end anchorage to another and consists of a
flexible line made from wire, fibre rope, wire rope, or rod, complete with end terminations (Canadian
Standards Association 2004). It provides a continuous anchorage line to which users can attach their
lanyards and other fall arrest equipment (Figure 1).
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) 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
2) 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).
(i) system components and its anchorages are of adequate strength to withstand the
Maximum Arrest Load (MAL) or Maximum Arrest Force (MAF) to prevent failure;
(ii) Maximum Arrest Force (MAF) experienced by the user(s) is within acceptable limits to
minimize the probability of injuries;
(iii) 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.
Compliance with legal requirements
At the same time, the Workplace Safety and Health (Work At Heights) Regulations 2013 Regulation 11
requires that a fall arrest system
Before a fall
Figure 2: Common example of HLL
Cross-sectional 10
A = = 3.142 = 78.550mm2
area of HLL 4 4
8 s 8 42.506 × 10
Initial cable length li =L 1+ = 10 1 + = 10.0004818m
3 L 3 10
l 10.0004818
Unstressed HLL = =
lo T 1 × 10 = 9.998200715m
cable length 1 + 1+
AE (78.55 × 10 )(55.8 × 10 )
To continue our analysis, we have to make some assumptions on the personal fall arrest system.
PEA Average Deployment Force Favg 4.8kN CSA Z259.16 Clause 7.3.3.2 where Favg = 0.8 Fmax since SS
528:Part 2 is similar to CSA Z259.11. Note: We can also
take Favg = 3.2kN (Goh 2014)
User(s) weight W 100kg Using the maximum user weight allowed in SS 528.
D-ring height above HLL anchorage hD 0.5m Assuming harness D-ring is an average of 1.5m from
user’s feet.
hD = 1.5 – (height of HLL anchor post) = 1.5 – 1 = 0.5m
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 lanyard’s Personal Energy Absorber (PEA).
Stage 2.2: At the PEA’s 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).
Stage 2: The fall energy generated is absorbed by the sagging of the HLL cable. We find the value of
the midpoint sagging s at which the force in the lanyard, F, is equal to the PEA deployment force. For
strength calculations, the PEA maximum deployment force should be used as per CSA Z259.16 Clause
7.3.3.1. Thus, we find the midpoint sagging by guessing an arbitrary value for s, then iterating s until F
= Fmax.
T
HLL elongation (m) x = 0.020 0.052 0.062 0.062 0.062
k
s
Force in Lanyard (kN) F = 4T 1.04 4.51 5.95 5.99 6.00
l
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.
AE (78.55 × 10 )(55.8 × 10 )
HLL Rope Modulus kHLL = = = 438.388kN/m
l 9.998200715
Energy Stored in 1
UHLLo = k s = (438.388)(49.082155 × 10−3 ) = 0.00kN-m
HLL at cusp sag 2
Energy absorbed 1
UHLL = k x = (438.388)(0.054) = 0.64 kN-m
by HLL elongation 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.
Energy generated by
U = Wh 3.29 3.58 3.53 3.54
falling user (kN-m)
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 “bottomed-
out”.)
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.
Let us review the analysis results against the essential design criteria for an effective HLL.
Maximum Arrest Force, MAF = Fmax = 6kN Since the capacity of the PEA was not exceeded in this fall,
(to the user) 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.
Maximum Arrest Load, MAL = T = 27.37kN The anchorages and wire rope will need to be able to
(to the anchors and wire rope) withstand this MAL with an additional safety factor of 1.5
as per CSA Z259.16 Clause 6.2.3 i.e. 41.06kN.
Applying the lumping factor of 1.75 for 2 falling users, the following parameters and assumptions are
adjusted as follows.
T
HLL elongation (m) x = 0.052 0.129 0.074 0.089 0.090 0.091
k
s
Force in Lanyard (kN) F = 4T 4.51 17.87 7.68 10.16 10.48 10.50
l
Again, we now iterate for xPEA until the fall energy is totally absorbed i.e. Uk = 0.
Energy generated by
U = Wh 6.30 6.38 6.37
falling user (kN-m)
The clearance required for the last user to fall (as per CSA Z259.16 Clause 8.2.7)
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 3-users 4-users
Free fall experienced by user (m) 2.549
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.
Pre-tension forces in the HLL changing due to temperature effects.
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/OSHD-
AR2012/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